Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

European Union (Defence Policy)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hanson.]

Mr. Crispin Blunt: At the end of this debate, for the first time, at your request and indeed instruction, Madam Speaker, the House will observe the two-minute silence while the House is sitting. It is appropriate that we are debating defence in the context of Europe. It is also appropriate that we should mark the 80th anniversary of the armistice, which followed a 100-day campaign of victory by the greatest land force ever assembled by this country.
Contrary to popular myth, that was a highly professional, well-led and supported military force which comprehensively defeated an aggressive, expansionist and militaristic enemy. That army was a citizen's army. It, and the professional army from which it grew, had paid a fearful price to achieve a world war-winning level of competence. We should be proud of their achievement.
We will also remember the price that was paid by hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens and by millions of our fellow European citizens in the wars that have scarred this continent this century. That is why I believe that defence remains the most important responsibility of any Government, and it reminds us of the importance of today's debate.
I put in for this debate because something is happening with defence policy in the European Union and the House has not been told. Now is the chance. We look forward to the speech of the Under-Secretary of State for Defence in the anticipation that it will be followed by a two-minute silence not only of remembrance, but, I hope, of stunned astonishment that we have learnt something from him about the Government's European policy.
On 1 July, the Financial Times reported:
Tony Blair has recognised that his ambition of carving a powerful role for the UK within the European Union could take 10 years and has commissioned a sweeping review of the UK's approach to the EU.
Officials said it was crucial for the UK to demonstrate it favoured closer integration in a number of areas, such as foreign and defence policies.
On 2 October, we seemed to have arrived at the conclusion of that exercise, when the extremely well-informed Robert Peston of the Financial Times reported:
The government is putting the finishing touches to a blueprint on Europe, which it hopes will pave the way for Britain to play a leading role alongside France and Germany.

The blueprint includes a controversial recommendation that the European Union should assume a defence capability—a move which would signal the biggest shift in policy since Labour took office.
Mr. Blair … is expected to make a decision ahead of this month's EU summit where member states will discuss the future of the Union.
To this end, the Foreign Office, with guarded support from the Ministry of Defence, is recommending that the Western European Union, the EU's embryonic defence arm, should be scrapped.
Those reports did not pass unnoticed. They were raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) in the strategic defence review debate, but they were not referred to specifically by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence in his reply on each day of those debates, so imagine our surprise on reading The Times headline of 21 October:
Britain to back defence role for Europe.
One might have been forgiven for thinking that the article could have been reporting our debate, but no. Philip Webster reported:
Britain is prepared for the first time to give the European Union a defence arm that would allow members' troops to co-operate in mounting military operations, the Prime Minister signalled last night.
Tony Blair made plain that he was ready to drop Britain's longstanding objections to the EU having a defence capability".
As the House was debating defence at 4.30 on Tuesday 20 October, the Prime Minister was talking to journalists from six leading European newspapers, including The Times, Le Monde and the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.
Just in case anyone tries to suggest that Philip Webster was exaggerating what the Prime Minister was saying, let me point out that, following that interview, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung reported that
the Blair Government has decided to give its European partners a pleasant surprise for once. The informal meeting of "Heads of Government in P6rtschach at the weekend will provide the setting.
It said that the Prime Minister
announced for the first time that London would abandon Britain's long-standing opposition to a firmer structure to Common Foreign and Security Policy.
That means that London will no longer oppose the appointment of a Mr. CFSP. That is not exactly news, as the previous Conservative Government, in their 1996 White Paper, said that they were ready to look at the idea of appointing a single figure to represent the policy of the Union to the outside world. I assume that the Labour Government have picked up Conservative policy in this area, as they have done in many other areas. When they followed Conservative policy on the economy, they did rather well; having abandoned it, they are in trouble.
Perhaps the Government should re-examine their policy on the Territorial Army and follow Conservative policy. We very much regret the rumours about an announcement in the House next Monday on the Territorial Army, some three weeks before the Army is ready for that. It is


disgraceful that the announcement is being dragged forward to get it out of the way before Prorogation, much to the danger of the TA.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: On what does the hon. Gentleman base his speculation about an announcement next Monday?

Mr. Blunt: I was informed by someone in the BBC—presumably a most reliable source.

Mr. Robert Key: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Defence answered two parliamentary questions on the matter yesterday—as reported in Hansard this morning—and confirmed that there will be a statement on the Territorial Army next week.

Mr. Blunt: It is much to be regretted that the Army is having to drag forward any announcement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): Why is the hon. Gentleman complaining about the matter being brought early to the House? In view of all the ill-informed speculation, I would expect him to want the House to be informed. Why is he complaining about the House being given early information? I fail to follow his logic.

Mr. Blunt: It is very simple—a most ungainly exercise is taking place inside the Territorial Army, as different parts of the Territorial Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Association and different regions are engaging in what my local TAVRA representative referred to as "horse trading" over which units would be placed where, which would survive and which TA centres would be sold. The speed with which this is happening means that the TA will be left inadequately staffed. We regret the fact that the Government are taking no notice of the unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee on Defence that they should think again because their policy is misconceived. However, this is a diversion from European Union defence policy, to which I shall now return.
The previous Conservative Government had accepted a Mr. CFSP—a Mr. PESC in France. As the German for "common foreign and security policy" is "gemeinsame aussen and sicherheitspolitik", the Germans are happy to have a Herr GASP—or perhaps a Fraulein GASP.
Although the news about a Mr. CFSP was not news, the conclusion drawn by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung from the Prime Minister remarks was. It said:
In the medium term, London is therefore now also questioning the role of the Western European Union … to which 10 or the 15 EU Member States belong. For as soon as the European Union adopts its own 'security policy identity', which the British government no longer intends to oppose, the WEU would become superfluous. Its political role would fall"—

Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the debates on 24 and 25 October, but I want to quote back to him what was said by my right

hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. At a meeting at which I was present, my right hon. Friend said:
Nato must remain the cornerstone of European defence but Britain would consider reinforcing the Western European Union"—
the very point—

Mr. Key: Carry on with the quote.

Mr. Cunliffe: I am going to do that. My right hon. Friend continued:
creating a more distinct European dimension within NATO or even merging the WEU and the EU.
Perhaps the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) would respond to that. A week after my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made the remarks quoted by the hon. Gentleman, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence was quite clear on what the exercise was all about.

Mr. Blunt: I look forward to hearing from the Under-Secretary of State exactly what the Government are up to. The House should have the benefit of a clarification of the Government's policy. That is what this debate is about and I look forward to the Under-Secretary's response to it.
I was quoting the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. It stated:
The WEU would become superfluous. Its political role would fall to the EU and its military role to NATO. Blair's ideas are supported by the Foreign Officeand Defence Ministry, although the latter has certain reservations.
We look forward to hearing what those are. It continued:
In the long term, this would mean the establishment of something akin to a European Foreign and Defence Ministry.
Le Monde directly asked the Prime Minister:
Do you support the idea of abolishing the WEU and transferring its military resources to NATO?
He replied:
There are all kinds of ideas and many admit that the WEU is less than the ideal instrument which we need. I believe that we must think in a more imaginative way than we are doing.
That is hardly a ringing endorsement of the WEU. What conclusion are people supposed to draw about the future of the WEU from those remarks?
The Prime Minister is considering a very substantial change which, in the light of the Amsterdam treaty, would stand the whole of the Government's approach on its head. I wonder whether other Ministers knew of it. There are rumours of Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Ministry of Defence papers for and against the ideas suggested—yet, when Defence Ministers were debating defence in this House, particular points were put to them, but they were unable to say whether those ideas were being considered.

Mr. Spellar: I am aware that the best way to keep a secret in this country is to make a speech on the Floor of the House. I refer the hon. Gentleman to column 1176 of Hansard on 20 October, where I dealt precisely with the points raised by the right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) and the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples).

Mr. Blunt: I read those remarks carefully because I had assumed that the Under-Secretary would deal with the


matter. However, they do not bear any resemblance to what the Prime Minister was saying on the same day to journalists from The Times and other European newspapers.

Mr. Spellar: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me what incompatibility he perceives between my comments at column 1176 and what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said?

Mr. Blunt: Yes. The Prime Minister spoke about the potential abolition of the Western European Union, but there was no suggestion of that in the Under-Secretary's remarks in the House. He spoke about the importance of NATO in European defence, and we all agree with that. However, the institutional framework in which NATO will operate and the relationship with the European Union are central to the issue. The problem is that the Prime Minister is dealing with a big idea, but he has no idea of the detail. Indeed, I shall shortly put some detailed points to the Under-Secretary. When we debated defence, what did the Under-Secretary know about the proposals for the WEU? What does he know about them now?
The Prime Minister's Cabinet colleagues were caught unsighted. The Minister for the Cabinet Office initially denied, in this House, that the Prime Minister had even briefed Philip Webster. He then retreated behind the solecism that it was not a briefing, but an interview on the record—a distinction lost on the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, which described the meeting with the Prime Minister as "a pre-summit briefing".
The Leader of the House said that the Prime Minister was simply saying that he wanted some imaginative thinking on how to enhance the European contribution to NATO. If that is what the French thought the Prime Minister was up to, he would have got extremely short shrift at the summit in Austria. What is certainly the case is that Members of this House did not know what the Prime Minister was doing. I raised the issue in our debate on the Army, but did not have the benefit of a response from the Under-Secretary. I raised it through an early-day motion, to which I have had no reply. The Under-Secretary' s colleagues, the hon. Members for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) and for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) raised the matter on the Floor of the House, and asked for a statement and an explanation.
The Times also quoted the Prime Minister as saying:
All I am saying is that we need to allow fresh thinking and it is important for Britain to be part of that thinking … and not for us simply to stand there and say 'we are not part of this'.
May I suggest something revolutionary? What about Parliament being exposed to this fresh thinking? Although we look forward to the Under-Secretary's reply, we probably need the Prime Minister here to answer the debate. The Prime Minister may think that his colleagues do not need to be aware of his proposals, but the House should be made aware of them.
In the Prime Minister's absence, it is a pity that—I say this with due respect to the Under-Secretary of State for Defence—the Minister for the Armed Forces will not be replying to this debate, as his experience as the Minister with responsibility for Europe and the man who signed the Amsterdam treaty would equip him admirably to provide that reply. Then again, as a fellow Oxford-educated public schoolboy socialist, the Under-Secretary

may have the advantage of having a clearer insight into the Prime Minister's thought processes. In the absence of a communiqué from the summit in Austria, where ideas and proposals were floated by our Prime Minister, and in the absence of any statement to the House, we seek guidance.
My approach to the Minister is made in a spirit of genuine inquiry. What is going on? We can hardly be blamed for being suspicious. Are the proposals merely an exercise in image building—an attempt to curry favour with our partners? Are they, as I fear, concession of a substantial position and the British interest, with no substantive proposals, strategy or endgame in mind? They seem horribly reminiscent of other of the Government's constitutional proposals—which sound good, but are out of control and are damaging once battle is joined over the detail, when Ministers belatedly discover that the initiative has passed to those who do not share the United Kingdom's agenda.
I hope that the Minister will answer some specific questions. Are the Amsterdam arrangements for the relationship between NATO, the WEU and the EU to be reviewed? If so, why? The arrangements have hardly begun. Why cannot the arrangements be given a chance to bed down and to work?
Perhaps the Minister can tell us when the Amsterdam treaty came into force or will come into force. I have been unable to ascertain the date. The treaty states that it will come into force
on the first day of the second month following that in which the instrument of ratification is deposited by the last signatory State to fulfil that formality.
The Minister will know, or certainly should know, that that date is important, as the protocol to article J.7 of the treaty states:
The European Union shall draw up, together with the Western European Union, arrangements for enhanced cooperation between them within a year from the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam.
Has that happened yet? Are the Government's proposals part of that process? If so, surely scrapping the Western European Union is hardly consistent with the treaty of Amsterdam.
When does the Minister believe that the next intergovernmental conference will be held to negotiate the new treaty which will do away with the Western European Union and rewrite the treaty of Amsterdam? Will he tell us what he believes to be the future of the WEU?
In the proposals, how are the aspirations of the neutral countries that are already inside the EU to be accommodated? Are the Government prepared to concede that the structure should be in the second, or CFSP, pillar of the European Union? If the WEU is no longer to exist, does it matter whether it is in the second or fourth pillar? What are the issues at stake?
Has any thought been given to enlargement? If the EU comes with an explicit security guarantee, will not that cause problems for the Baltic states? Would not an implicit security guarantee far more effectively enhance their security, without the risk of provoking Russia, which will be in God knows what condition in 10 years?
If we are to have a single money and a single economy—something to which the Government are, in principle, committed—why do we not move towards a common defence policy, and not least down the road of


defence specialisation, as proposed by the Liberal Democrats? Although such a policy would be the end of our ability to act independently, it would force us to face up to the fact that, if economic and monetary union is not to fall apart, democratically accountable institutions have to be created at the European level to deal with issues of wealth redistribution, fiscal policy, macro economic policy and monetary policy. Why should such institutions not be created to deal with defence as well? It is the logical end of the path that the Prime Minister is taking us down.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: My hon. Friend is making an extremely good case on why we should be given a better explanation. From his own experience in both the forces and the Ministry of Defence as a special adviser, can he think of any occasion in the recent past on which a common defence policy, if one had been created, would have affected our capabilities? Does he think that we as a country would have been able to act as well and effectively as we did in the Gulf, for example, if we had had a common defence policy, as is now being described?

Mr. Blunt: The short answer is no; neither in the Gulf war nor in the Falkland Islands would we have been able to act as effectively. If we had had a common defence and common defence forces in the absence of common democratic structures at the European level to direct those forces, those events certainly would not have happened. If we had had European-level direction—which we shall assume was democratically accountable, within the United States of Europe, about which some Labour Members are probably enthusiastic—would it have been prepared to support the United States in the Gulf? Would it have been prepared to support the United Kingdom's interests in the Falklands Islands? I think that those questions would have been answered in the negative.

Mr. Denis MacShane: The hon. Gentleman will recall that, when the Falklands war broke out and there was some havering in Washington, on the first morning after war started, the first national leader to telephone Mrs. Thatcher to offer her complete and unconditional support was President Mitterrand. He immediately provided to the Ministry of Defence details of how the Exocet missiles were organised and operated. The great complaint was that British arms exporters were running to their clients in Arab countries saying, "You can't trust the French; they'll give away the details of their Exocets. Buy British, not French."

Mr. Blunt: I am grateful for that intervention. The hon. Gentleman's comments are perfectly correct; the French did us an enormous favour in allowing the fleet to exercise against Super Etendards equipped with Exocets on their way down to Ascension island. However, had the Spanish and Italian Governments been part of a European set-up, how keen would they have been to support the policy of retaking the Falkland Islands from the Argentines? It begs the question of what capability the United Kingdom would have had to act in recovering our possessions.

Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way a second time, especially as we are dealing

with a slight distraction from his main theme. Leaving aside the Falklands—although we could discuss the mechanics who were assisting in servicing the Super Etendards that were flying against the British fleet during the Falklands war—does he recall Mitterrand's actions, up to the 59th minute of the 11th hour, in undermining western diplomacy against Iraq in the Gulf, and also the assistance that the Belgian Government gave us? Mitterand sent a delegation to Iraq about one day before war broke out, contrary to the policy of the other western Governments, and the Belgians failed to supply us with ammunition, because they thought that doing so might upset their Iraqi contracts.

Mr. Blunt: The interventions are extremely interesting, because they demonstrate that different European states have different national interests. I think that the question of whether they can be brought together at some European level would have to be answered in the negative.
We need to know the Government's endgame. If we believe that British independence of action is worth preserving and that our country's alliance with the United States should be central to our foreign and defence policy, we should have some answers to the questions that I have asked the Minister. This is a constitutional adventure too important to be left to the Prime Minister's sound-good politics. His colleagues who have a better eye for detail and the potential pitfalls ahead need to get a grip on the policy. I look forward to hearing that the Ministry of Defence, at least, knows where the policy is headed.

Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: I shall concentrate on the new emerging Europe, which introduces a further dimension and perspective that calls for review, although I still accept the common defence policy.
Let me declare my interest as deputy leader of the British delegations to the Council of Europe and the Western European Union. I have spent the past 10 months producing a rapporteur's report on our intelligence section rapid response control and command system, which will be presented to the WEU in Paris in the first week in December. I was, therefore, somewhat alarmed by the statement in October which attempted to define the British review policy.
I hope that the new emerging Europe will play a positive part in establishing peace, stability and security throughout Europe and the world. The current and previous British Governments genuinely supported that aim. I remember the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), clearly and distinctly spelling out his support for the WEU at a conference at Church house about six months before the general election.
In my view, Europe must be a community of free member states. I reject the concept of a European super-state. The European Union must be based on a sharing of national interest and not on the surrender of national identity. That is particularly important in relation to defence.
I see no case for merging the common foreign and security policy into the bureaucratic machinery of Brussels. The establishment of a European army would limit our freedom and flexibility in respect of engagement in any war or military crisis—for example, in Kosovo or


anywhere in the Balkans, which are somewhat volatile at present. However, the nations of Europe need each other. We are interdependent and carry the weight of great trading blocs, so it is imperative that we present a common front to the world. Our foreign and security policy must first be a defining expression of national identity. We must then proceed to unite Europe in a common defence policy while continuing to maintain and safeguard our independent national interest.
In my view, the best way in which to achieve that aim is to strengthen the WEU and give it a more positive role working with the United States, which always has been and, for at least the next 20 years, will continue to be, the cornerstone of our European defence. I see no reason to change something that has worked incredibly well.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will respect the views of all right hon. and hon. Members on defence issues. I believe that we should take an open view on how we should safeguard our future and that of our European colleagues. I make no apologies for having voted—first at the Council of Europe and then at the WEU—in favour of welcoming former eastern bloc and Soviet Union nations.
When I met Vice-President Gore some 18 months ago, we discussed the European dimension. We should bear in mind the fact that America has 300,000 troops in Europe, and that maintaining them there represents an economic problem. It is clear that Russia, Romania, Bulgaria and other emerging nations will have to take a positive role in any European defence system, so it is necessary to review our commitments in Europe. In my view, the WEU should take an important role. It has the experience and expertise, and is modernising its approach, as is clear from my rapporteur's report.
We have always supported the NATO alliance, for which we should be extremely grateful in terms of our security in Europe over the past 40 years. Mainly thanks to NATO, we have seen the total elimination of the Warsaw bloc. Certain former Soviet nations are still haunted by their relations with NATO in the past and, even though they are now co-opted members on certain consultative committees, they remain wary of the United States.
We should be firmly committed to the enlargement of Europe to the east and accept the necessity to embrace and support the new democracies of eastern Europe. We would be foolish not to do so. History will judge us harshly if we leave the door shut in their faces or allow their countries to slide back into totalitarianism. That applies equally to economic and military matters.
NATO and its participating Governments must confront and resolve three issues. The first is the future of the transatlantic relationship. Certain groups in America favour a gradual withdrawal of troops as soon as Europe can take care of itself. Secondly, we must review NATO's wider security function, including its possible use of out-of-area missions. Thirdly we must consider the future of "Partnership for Peace" and the recent NATO enlargement.
We must also redefine the transatlantic relationship so that any British Government, of whatever political disposition, will know which direction to take.
We must also consider NATO's wider security role. My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), who has a great interest in defence matters, spoke about

the role of our defence forces. I have just visited one of our frigates in the Gulf, HMS Cumberland, where I was informed of the importance of having available aircraft which do not have to fly 3,000 miles to a military emergency. Mobility is crucial to the question whether we merge certain parts of the Air Force and the Navy in response to the demand for flexibility.
In conclusion, although certain fundamental changes have not been made, and I have read from A to Z the speech that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made in October, it is clear that there is a flexible approach—

Mr. Blunt: Which of the Prime Minister's speeches has the hon. Gentleman read from A to Z—

Mr. Cunliffe: The one that my right hon. Friend made at the summit at Portschach in October—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) is being intervened on. He must wait until the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) has finished speaking before responding to him.

Mr. Blunt: If the hon. Gentleman is giving us an account of what happened at the summit in Austria, which so far has failed to be communicated to the world, we look forward to hearing what it is and what authority it carries.

Mr. Cunliffe: Well, what was said was based on the Amsterdam treaty. The Prime Minister outlined the agreement to modernise and strengthen the system of defence control. Most of the quotations that I have are about a better military capability. There are references to
more modern, flexible, sustainable and deployable forces
and
drawing on the lessons of the success of NATO.
We all agree on that.

Mr. Key: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he has seen the full text of what the Prime Minister said? One of the difficulties is that No. 10, the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence have said that there is no verbatim text of the speech. We have all had to rely on press reports. Has the hon. Gentleman obtained a verbatim report?

Mr. Cunliffe: I do not have a verbatim report. I have quotations from Reuters. 1 assume that Ministers have seen them, in view of what they said the week after, which I quoted earlier. Ministers have made it clear that NATO is the cornerstone of our defence policy. I have already talked about tidying up and modernising. There has to be a flexible response with a review. The breakup of the Warsaw pact has meant that there is now a positive military input from some eastern European countries. We did not have that before.
This is an important debate. I have known the Minister for many years and he deserves his current position. I am sure that he will try to inform the House to the best of his ability of present and future policy, as far as is permissible for security reasons.

Mr. Mike Hancock: I congratulate the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) on choosing this subject and having the debate on such an appropriate day for considering defence co-operation in Europe.
I returned yesterday afternoon from a meeting of the Western European Union in Paris, where we were discussing the future of the organisation. The impression given by members from other European countries was very depressing, arising from what the Prime Minister had said. Questions were asked about Britain's future co-operation in the WEU. As I drove back across northern France, past the Somme and Picardy, I thought about the trauma of the experiences 80 years ago and what has been achieved since. Sadly, we have had to fight another world war and, in most of the years since the end of the first world war, British troops have been engaged in active service somewhere in the world. Only one year has passed since then without British troops dying somewhere in the world defending people's rights and freedom.
The great war showed the need for European nations to co-operate. The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) rightly said—I imagine that most hon. Members and our European partners agree—that, when Britain signed the Amsterdam agreement, we were signing up for a strengthening of the WEU's position in the family of European organisations. Our continued support for the WEU was clearly stated by signing the treaty. There are six organisations covering Europe and our north Atlantic allies, ranging in size from the European Union, with 15 members, to the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, with 56 members. The WEU was singled out among those six for special consideration. The Prime Minister was wrong to cast doubt on the future of the WEU.
The Secretary of State for Defence will be with us in Paris at the start of December. I hope that, in the hour or so that he will have to present several topics to the Assembly, he will state the Government's position on the WEU clearly. Anything short of that will give credence to the suggestion that Britain is looking for an alternative based on the EU. I do not regard that as a practical solution. It is fraught with difficulties, it would lead to endless, unnecessary argument and it would destroy a lot of the good will of the countries from the former Soviet bloc that have become associated with the WEU and see it as a focal point for making partnership work. "Partnership for Peace" and many other organisations do not have a cat in hell's chance of long-term success unless the WEU is strengthened.
We have to look around at experience of what organisations can deliver. Colleagues at the WEU considered an interesting report over the past couple of days called "New Prospects for Transatlantic Co-operation in Security and Defence", produced by Mr. Blaauw, vice-chairman of the political committee. He is a much-decorated service man who is now an experienced leading politician in the Netherlands. His report points to some of the issues that are sometimes forgotten, including the difficulty of gaining co-operation for the United States to free up some of NATO's assets for use by the WEU.
We ought to ask the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence to talk to our American allies about greater co-operation with the WEU. Sadly, the Americans

are reluctant to do that. It is a pity that they are not more visionary in exploring the opportunities offered by the WEU. Albania, for example, has been ripped apart by strife. NATO and the United Nations could not have gone in, but the WEU did. The policing of Albania by the dark blue berets of the WEU is a significant contribution to bringing some sense to the turmoil there.
The WEU has a real role to play. If European co-operation is to mean more than just co-operation on procurement projects—if it means seeking true partnerships for peace and trying to work out a European dimension for sorting out problems—three things are necessary. First, this House must be paramount in deciding what is in the best defence interests of this country. That should always be discussed here first, not speculated on even by the Prime Minister at conferences elsewhere until he has clearly put his thoughts to the House. Such far-reaching issues, which would have repercussions way outside the United Kingdom, should be dealt with here first.
Secondly, we must make sure that everybody signs up for an organisation that can deliver. The WEU is trying to adapt itself to the new future for Europe. It is trying to accommodate the rights of individual states and make partnership work.
Thirdly, and most importantly for Europe, there must be credibility in Europe for the organisation. The WEU has such credibility. Britain's 36 representatives from all parties and both Houses of Parliament–18 full members and 18 substitutes—have a clear influence in its policy making. As a member of that organisation, I have felt undermined by recent speculation.
Sadly, there has been no attempt to clarify the matter, and this debate is the first opportunity that we have had for that. I hope that the Minister will respond in a robust and up-front manner, and experience suggests that he will defend his position robustly. However, the House will be interested in the factual information that we need.
If we do not get that information today, I am afraid that those hon. Members who are predicting doom and gloom within the WEU—and who are possibly undermining other institutions in Europe—will, sadly, get backing from an unusual source, the British Government. The Government should instead be giving positive backing. They should say that there is a role for the organisation, that Europe does matter, that we want to play a part in it and that we want our role to be within the WEU.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) on introducing this debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) and the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), who took part in the debate. It is important that we discuss defence often. I see no problem with what the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence or anyone else says if it means that we have an open discussion. It is healthy to keep all options open, but we should always come here to debate whatever takes place in Europe.

Mr. Blunt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend—to return his compliment. However, we have had to drag the Government here, and Labour Members have been asking for Government statements. Surely he dissociates himself


from the fact that the Government have not been prepared to come to the House to make a statement. It has been left to me to drag the Minister here.

Mr. Hoyle: I do not think that the way forward is to score cheap political points, and I shall not enter into that. We want an open debate, and I have confidence that my hon. Friend the Minister will give us clarification.
Members on both sides of the Chamber are never frightened of discussing defence. We have always displayed good, honest views, and that will never change. I am reassured by the statement that NATO must remain the cornerstone of the EU's defence, but that Britain will consider reinforcing the Western European Union, and will try to create a more distinct EU dimension within NATO. We need to be told whether we are to have an EU force, or whether the WEU will continue. I welcome this debate, which gives us the opportunity to discuss whether the changes are essential and whether they will work.
The burden on our forces must be remembered. We have mounted operations in the Falklands and the Gulf, and there are problems within the former Yugoslavia. Time bombs ticks way and explode here, there and everywhere. We may even see problems in the Baltic states—we do not know. British forces, rightly, are at the forefront, and are a shining example of our commitment to peacekeeping in Europe and the world.
I believe that the other European nations have a part to play. They must not just sit back, passing judgment on what is right and wrong. They must not pay lip service when problems erupt in the former Yugoslavia because, as we have seen, we cannot rely on the Americans, who do not wish to have troops on the ground. Our troops will have to be there, and that is a problem. Our troops' lives are being risked—not American troops, although the Americans will pass judgment. If we can bring in other European states and ensure that they play a major role—and that their troops are placed in the hot spots of Europe—I will welcome that. It is crucial that the Minister discusses whether we are to have an EU force or the continuation or expansion of the WEU.
We can have that discussion because we have democracy, and Parliament must retain the ability to discuss that issue. The countries we are sending forces to assist do not have those rights or the ability to enjoy that freedom. We must not lose sight of that.
We all look to Europe for future defence procurement mergers, and companies must merge to compete with the Americans. British Aerospace has said that it needs to ensure its future, and we must produce weapons with a European dimension. We all welcome that, and that is the way forward. Otherwise, we will always be reliant on the Americans.

Mr. Julian Brazier: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the critical role that American research and development plays in our programmes? Is he aware that members of the Defence Select Committee, on a recent visit to Washington, were told again and again that the exchange of technology—which is principally beneficial to this country—would not be available if our defence industry became subsumed in a wider European defence industry?

Mr. Hoyle: Of course I welcome our work with the Americans, which will continue. However,

the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the future large aircraft will come not via the Americans, but via the Europeans. We all beat the drum about the success of the European airbus, and we want to say that the future large aircraft—built in Europe for the world—will have a dual role. European manufacturers have a part to play, but I do not lose sight of our great allies the Americans, and NATO will be the cornerstone of America and the UK.
We need our own defence independence to allow us to fight in the Falklands—if conflict re-emerges—in the Gulf or in Africa, if we decide to try to keep the peace there. I do not want to rely on someone in Europe telling us where we can go. That fear has comes across today, but it is not necessary. I want to reassure everybody that we will have the independence to go wherever we are needed.
Gibraltar is an issue of tactical importance to the UK. We mounted the Falklands and the Gulf operations from there, and we must not allow Spain to come in the back way and take it away from us. We must work together within Europe, and play a leading part in Europe. There is a danger—which has become clear this morning—that the sceptics are allowing their view to cover everything.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Is the hon. Gentleman concerned that, given problems such as Gibraltar and Spain's designs on it, there is a danger that the development of a common European foreign and security policy might prevent us from looking after British and Gibraltarian interests?

Mr. Hoyle: No, definitely not. I must rule that out completely. I would not want to follow the example of the previous Government, under whom the people of Hong Kong were given back to China when there was no need. We must not allow that ever to happen again. [Interruption.] Hong Kong island was not part of the deal, and we could have held on to it for ever. The previous Government failed to negotiate on behalf of the people of Hong Kong because of their desire to get in bed with the communist Government. After Tiananmen square, the previous Government should have learnt something. They failed to do so. I always say that, if people have no desire to become part of another country, we must not allow that to happen. That is why I stand by the view of the people of Gibraltar, unlike the previous Government who did not stand by the people of Hong Kong, so Conservative Members should not lecture me on that matter. We must remember, and learn from, the previous Government's mistakes.
It is important that we are always willing to discuss, and look at, both sides of the argument and that we arrive at the right decision. Scaremongering is easy, but we should not allow it. There should be open discussion, then we will make the right decision. We can ensure that we look after Europe and that it looks after us. We are a part of it and we must not lose sight of that.
Crucially, we must always remember that British troops will be stretched unless there is some sort of European force—either a WEU or an EU force. British troops are always the first on the ground and they do an excellent job when serving overseas. No one can take that away from them. However, other European nations should tackle some of the problems in Europe instead of leaving it to good old Britain. They have a part to play. Hopefully, as a result of this discussion, or through the


Prime Minister or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence having discussions, we will find a way forward. If we can ensure that we get the right deal for the United Kingdom and our defence forces, I will not have a problem with it, as long as that independence remains. I believe that it will.

Mr. Robert Key: I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) on his success in obtaining this important debate. I hope that he gets the answers that he sought from the Minister. I also congratulate all those hon. Members who have spoken. As is usual in defence debates, all those who have spoken care and know about the subject.
The House should not have to rely on the Opposition to haul reluctant Ministers to the Dispatch Box. We will haul them here at every opportunity, but how much better it would be if they were less secretive. If the Government were more open, they would not have leaks and the paranoia of the Ministry of Defence over the strategic defence review and the Territorial Army. That gallant soldier, General Sir Michael Walker, Commander-in-Chief, Land Command, would not have to issue letters saying that idle chatter on social occasions about the cuts would imperil military careers, or talk of press revelations eroding trust between military chiefs and "our political masters", and order his troops to avoid
deliberate contact with the press or politicians".
As the Member of Parliament for Salisbury, I would have a pretty boring time at social events, in my surgeries and elsewhere, if that happened and I regret that it has been necessary for him to say it.
Three weeks ago, the House debated the Government's strategic defence review. At the very moment that the Minister for the Armed Forces was speaking, the Prime Minister was briefing the European press on the future of European defence policy. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister had forgotten to tell the Secretary of State for Defence or, if he had, the latter had forgotten to tell his Ministers who were speaking in the House. That was incompetent. The Prime Minister was incompetent, as was the Secretary of State for Defence. It was a muddle.
The Prime Minister went off to Portschach in Austria to tell the leaders of Europe that they were in a muddle over defence. Last week in Vienna, the Secretary of State for Defence tried to sort it all out. He said in his speech there that it was "a one-off informal conference"—it was so informal that he told the press that it was "a defining moment" for defence policy. The Secretary of State was asked about merging the European Union and Western European Union. He said:
We do not rule it out, but it raises a number of difficulties"—
I'll say it does. He confirmed that other options include:
merging some elements of the WEU with the EU and associating other elements more closely with NATO, or perhaps creating a more distinct European dimension within NATO.

Just for good measure, he added that one could also envisage
reinforcing and reinvigorating the WEU".
So, the Prime Minister forgot to talk to the Ministry of Defence, but both he and the Secretary of State for Defence forgot to talk to the Foreign Office. That was also incompetent.
Yesterday, in another place, Government policy on EU-WEU integration was debated. The Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Baroness Symons, said, in column 627 of the Official Report:
The Government are not focusing on institutional changes though these may come.
By column 629, she had warmed up a little and she said:
the relationship between the WEU and Europe on the one hand and the WEU and NATO on the other is one on which a little more clarity from time to time would be helpful.
And so say all of us. By column 630, she was firing on all cylinders and she said:
the common strategies developed under CFSP are subject to unanimity vote. However, the common positions which flow from those strategies are subject to qualified majority voting unless they are not covered by a common strategy. I hope that point is clear."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 November 1998; Vol. 594, c. 627–630.]

Mr. MacShane: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, particularly because I spent the most invigorating morning with the noble Baroness Symons yesterday in Rotherham and sent her back to the other place all fired up. Is not the hon. Gentleman making an immense meal out of this? I am privy to no papers, but I read in the Financial Times that the proposal was outlined in a paper by Mr. Robert Cooper of the Foreign Office, one of our cerebral gentlemen there. I read all about it before Portschach. So, far from it being sprung on the Austrians, it was widely reported in the press. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman takes out a subscription to the Financial Times. He will learn much to his advantage.

Mr. Key: First, may I say how surprised, but delighted, I am that the hon. Gentleman has visited Rotherham. I congratulate him. I do not need to take out a subscription to the Financial Times because I can read it in the Library of the House, along with The Sun.
Chancellor Klima of Austria has more definite ideas. He said at Pőrtschach, that a "new dynamic" has developed on the issue in the European Union and that he had observed the emergence of a "commitment" as regards a common foreign and security policy. He said that the Prime Minister's intervention on the subject, which included the "variant" of the "possible integration" of WEU into the EU, reflects a "movement" by London that cannot but be welcomed. Several summit participants commented that the European countries should have a common position on the subject by the time of the NATO summit in Washington in April 1999. However, Mr. Klima made a point of stating that the Vienna European Council should not be expected to indicate the time of a possible merger of WEU into the EU. That is a relief, but it is imposing a pretty tight timetable on the Government for that debate.


In Vienna last week, the French Defence Minister, Alain Richard, was clear too, saying:
No-one contests the importance of the transatlantic link for our security, but neither does anyone doubt that a Europe with a single currency cannot go long without a real defence and security dimension".
He considered that it would be "very useful" for discussions between WEU and NATO on the
use of cores of CJTF headquarters in a European command chain".
All that evidence shows me that many people in Europe seem to be clear, but that this House is not, even if any member of the Government is.
What of our Italian allies? The Italian Defence Minister, Carlo Scognamiglio said that European military capabilities
are not so limited or fragile as widely believed".
He said in Vienna that the Europeans can field more soldiers, ships or combat aircraft than the United States. However, he admitted that
this numerical reality does not spell the operational truth".
According to Mr. Scognamiglio, one of the most striking aspects that emerged from those discussions was the fact that there was a
gross lack of mutual knowledge among those forces".
He suggested the organisation of joint exercises and the development of exchanges between officers to remedy those shortcomings.
That is fine, but I thought that the Ministry of Defence was clear about the reorganisation of European defence industries—or has it been saying one thing in Brussels and another in the House? On 28 October, the Government published their response to the joint report of the Defence and Trade and Industry Committees on aspects of defence procurement and industrial policy. Recommendations q and I read:
The Government does not support the creation of a 'Fortress Europe' … and it has consistently opposed any move towards a system of European preference which it believes is incompatible with the longer term competitiveness of European industry.
What of the views of the biggest country in Europe, Germany? Following the recent elections, an unlikely coalition emerged between the Social Democrats—always suspicious about defence—and the Green party—always opposed to defence, to large industries in general and to defence industries in particular.
In Baden-Baden, Defence Minister Rudolf Scharping said that he wanted to strengthen Europe's role in NATO. He said:
I would like us to finally overcome our weakness in Europe and formulate a common foreign and security policy".
On Thursday, he said on Sildwestrudfunk radio that there must finally be a strong European pillar in NATO, which was not at all the case at the moment—"at least," he added,
it is not as strong as it should be".
He said that he wanted to tackle that great challenge, but that nothing would happen until the new defence structure commission—Germany's version of the strategic defence review —had reported.
Unlike the British Government, who said that they would complete their review in six months, the German Government have said that the commission will take two years. The French and the Italians expect something to

happen by early next year, but Germany is saying, "Hang on a minute. We aren't going to do anything for at least two years and then we'll let the world know what we think."
Of the Greens' demands to cut the size of the Bundeswehr, Mr. Scharping said that it made no sense to deal with abstract figures now and that conclusions for the future of the Bundeswehr could be drawn only after careful assessment of the situation. The coalition expressly agreed to take any budget and business decisions on the Bundeswehr only when the results of the defence structure commission were available.
The realities are different. In the Gulf war, Britain and France joined the US-led military coalition whereas other EU members refused to commit troops. EU members were unable to agree a common approach to diplomatic efforts to end the conflict. In the former Yugoslavia, they took different views on the recognition of Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. The way forward in resolving the conflict in Bosnia—the when and how of using military force—was in disarray. Peace was established only when the US took the diplomatic and military lead.
In serious crises, the divergent position of EU members will undermine efforts to establish a common approach. The diversity of EU members and the distinctiveness of their national foreign policy traditions often make agreement difficult. The EU lacks the political institutions and instruments that are necessary for an effective common foreign and security policy. It has no collective foreign ministry to provide intelligence, analysis and political advice and it lacks mechanisms to ensure that member states implement common positions once they have been agreed. Mechanisms for collective action via the WEU are only now being developed, although, as I said in last week's Army debate, I welcome them.
The Government must deal with the muddle and confusion in their policy. I recognise that this country has new opportunities, but there is a fixed timetable in which to achieve NATO's new strategic vision. NATO has delivered peace and stability for Europe, whereas the role of the WEU has begun to emerge only since the Petersberg declaration.
The Conservative party does not oppose progress, which is vital; we oppose the Government's confusion. Strong defence is the Government's first duty to the country and their first duty to the House is to tell us of their new policy ambitions—they must not forget that they are accountable to the House. Ministers should not trot around Europe from hotel to hotel, spa to spa and conference to conference, speculating on the future of our defence. Infrequently, they issue communiqués, but mostly we have to rely on foreign press reports and selective press briefings in Whitehall.
In a few minutes, the House will be remembering that, 80 years ago today, the armistice that brought to an end the first world war was signed. Most of us lost relatives in those terrible battles. The loss of life was on a scale unimaginable today, when such carnage would be unacceptable. That is why, if we love peace, the people of these islands will always have to prepare for war.
There are always some who say that the sacrifices of the first and second world wars were futile. They were not futile. It is because our youngest, fittest, brightest and best risked their lives that our Parliament is today debating the future of the common defence of


the peaceful, stable and expanding democracies that have grown from the ashes of the countries that twice this century tore themselves to pieces. In the abiding hope of peace and prosperity for Europe in the next century, we will remember them.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): I congratulate the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) on securing what he rightly described as a timely debate on the European Union and defence policy. He strayed from that important subject by, among other things, disparaging Oxford. I do not know whether he has discussed that with the Leader of the Opposition or with some of his other colleagues; perhaps we are seeing a new fault line in the Conservative party.
I was astonished that the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) mentioned the leaking of Government papers, especially after the results of the inquiry into the leaking of the White Paper on the strategic defence review. I should have thought that a period of silence on the subject would be appropriate.
As hon. Members know, the Amsterdam treaty will come into force when the final instrument of ratification is deposited. We expect that to be soon, although it will depend on the agenda of other national Parliaments. The treaty provides important new instruments to strengthen the common foreign and security policy. It also clarifies and sets limits on the defence aspects of CFSP and the role of the Western European Union in providing the European Union with access to an operational capability.
The Government have launched a wide-ranging debate in the European Union on the future of Europe. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister opened the debate on defence and security issues at the informal European Union summit in Austria at the end of October and, as has been said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence reinforced that by leading the discussion at an informal conference of EU Defence Ministers in Vienna last week. Moreover, I dealt with the subject in the House on 20 October.
Hon. Members mentioned the problems that arose during previous crises. It is because of those problems that our aim is to enable the European Union to have a more united and influential voice, which may be articulated with greater speed and coherence through the common foreign and security policy. That voice must be backed up, when the need arises, with effective and prompt military action. The European Union must be able both to decide and to act quickly and effectively to achieve common goals. We believe that that will require some fresh thinking on the future direction of European defence.

Mr. MacShane: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be most welcome if the British Army and, indeed, the European armies, sent their engineering corps and regiments—our Sappers
—to help rebuild central America? 1 know that I speak for the Territorial Army engineers in Rotherham, who would be delighted to help to rebuild bridges and roads and to bring some peace and hope to that devastated region. Britain could lead an

armada for peace involving our European partners' armies and professional military engineers. Much equipment—including JCBs and bulldozers—is currently mothballed, so let us send it to central America, to show that our Sappers and engineers from other European armies can provide concrete help.

Mr. Spellar: I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the enormous efforts of our troops in that appalling emergency. Further discussions are taking place on the most cost-effective and operationally effective ways in which to help in the full-scale reconstruction of the countries in that area, but I am sure that his comments will be considered.

Mr. Blunt: The Minister said that the European Union must have the capacity to act. However, under the Amsterdam treaty, the EU will ask the WEU to act for it. Is he presaging a change in Government policy, whereby such capabilities will be given to the EU?

Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait, as the later part of my speech will make clear the direction in which we are moving.
The changes are a development of our on-going policy, and accusations about a lack of co-ordination are, frankly, ludicrous. Britain has always sought to build strong foundations for European security. Under the post-war Labour Government, we were a founder member of both the Atlantic Alliance and the Western European Union. Since then, Governments of both parties have contributed to the successful growth and adaptation of those organisations throughout their history, as they have evolved to respond to changing circumstances, just as they must today.
We have played a key role in developing the European security and defence identity within NATO, an initiative launched at NATO's Brussels summit in 1994 under the previous Administration and strengthened in 1996 at Berlin. The first meeting of NATO Defence Ministers at the level of the North Atlantic Council in Brussels, 10 days after Berlin, attended by the then Defence Secretary, Michael Portillo, warmly welcomed the Berlin agreement and agreed to oversee the implementation of its defence and military aspects. I was slightly confused about whether the hon. Member for Reigate supported those decisions by the previous Administration.
We have also been a key player in developing the Western European Union's ability to enable Europeans to act together militarily: an idea that dates back to 1984, when the WEU was reactivated as the vehicle for developing a common European defence identity.
We are rightly proud of a defence capability that is respected and admired throughout the world, and will be all the more so following the implementation of the strategic defence review. We should also be proud of our readiness to intervene to help those in need and to stamp out violence and repression: to act as a force for good. It is right and proper that we bring our experience to the table and ensure that the debate takes a realistic and pragmatic course, reflecting our own interests, and that European rhetoric is turned into hard-nosed reality.
Contrary to the unfounded assertions of the hon. Member for Reigate, we are not talking about removing defence from the control of national Governments and


national Parliaments. Of course, as the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) said, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, member states must retain control of the use of their armed forces and the circumstances in which they are placed in danger.
We do not believe that it would be right for the European Commission or the European Parliament to have any direct role in those decisions; nor must there be any question of undermining NATO or attempting to duplicate it. NATO will rightly remain the foundation of our collective defence, as set out in article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty. That was explicitly recognised for the first time in a European Union context in the Amsterdam treaty.
Our aim is to strengthen Europe's position in the world. Europe's 370 million citizens expect and deserve nothing less. We want to ensure that Europe can speak with authority and act with decisiveness. For that to be a reality, European foreign policy needs to be coherent, responsive and credible.
There is no simple way of achieving that. Partly, it is a question of ensuring that we have sufficient common political will; perhaps even more importantly, it requires the establishment of an effective defence capability to underpin that will; and partly we need to get right the institutional arrangements that link the two.

Mr. Brazier: Does it not show what an exercise in fantasy building the European military dream is for the Minister to speak of underpinning defence capability when it is so clear that countries throughout Europe, with the honourable exception of France, are in the process of slashing their military budgets? Projects are being cancelled in Germany at this very moment.

Mr. Spellar: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should disparage, for example, the very effective joint amphibious capability that we have with the Dutch. That is an excellent example, and we want to develop that relationship. I am sure that he would agree that that is the right way to assert a proper European presence within NATO, which, as he would also surely agree, is the cornerstone of our defence policy.
The positive responses of our European partners to the speeches by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence bear testimony to the timeliness and importance of our approach.
We cannot conjure up shared political will by waving a wand. We need only look at recent experience to see how difficult it is to agree policies that respect and accommodate the diverse interests of all our European partners, whose international postures range from strict neutrality to active interventionism. Having reached agreement, it is equally, if not more, difficult to respond rapidly to changing circumstances.
To take our place in the world we will need to move beyond that, towards a foreign policy that is both forward looking and proactive and has the ability to respond to fast-moving situations. That will provide a response to the criticisms of past practice that have rightly been made in the Chamber.

Mr. Blunt: The Minister has still to address the Government's policy on the Western European Union. Nothing that he has said is inconsistent with a proposal to

abolish the WEU. The Amsterdam treaty, which was signed by the Minister for the Armed Forces in his previous capacity, is not even in force yet, and the Ministry of Defence has yet to deny that a proposal to overturn the whole basis of the way in which our defence is treated is actively being considered.

Mr. Spellar: We do not intend to be frightened by the various ghosts that the hon. Gentleman is conjuring up. It will be easier to get through this speech if I am allowed to follow on logically rather than being constantly interrupted.
We will need to exploit the instruments that were created at Amsterdam. The appointment of a high representative for the common foreign and security policy, with real standing and authority, will be a step in the right direction, and I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for that. We will have significantly advanced our ability to decide and to react, but that will not be enough: we also need to enhance our ability to act.
If Europe is to have a stronger voice in the world, European armed forces will need to be capable of supporting our position. We need to put muscle behind Europe's foreign policy for those few hard cases when the normal instruments of foreign policy—trade, economic and political relations and diplomacy—are not enough.
Hon. Members will be aware of Kofi Annan's statement on his return from Iraq. He said:
You can do a lot with diplomacy but, of course, you can do a lot more with diplomacy backed up with firmness and force.
That is frequently quoted, but it is a perfect encapsulation of what we should be striving to achieve for Europe, especially in those situations in which our North American allies are not directly engaged. We need to be confident that, when we call for action, we have the right means at our disposal to act. Having the right means will contribute, bottom up, to the process of building the confidence and the shared political will that European foreign policy needs.

Mr. Blunt: rose—

Mr. Spellar: We need a defence capability that is fit for today's world. We must recognise that future crises may arise anywhere and at any time. We need armed forces that are deployable and sustainable, powerful and flexible, mobile, survivable and highly capable. Those were the fundamental tenets of the strategic defence review, reflecting the approach that we have taken to modernising our armed forces better to suit their tasks of today and tomorrow.

Mr. Blunt: Will the Minister still not give way? Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Spellar: Effective military capability and collective political will are clearly the key requirements. The institutional arrangements have been the focus of much speculation and coverage.

Mr. Blunt: Surely the Minister must give way now.

Mr. Spellar: If the hon. Gentleman wants me to get to the point that he wants me to cover, he had better stop shouting.


The key is to be confident that, when we call for action, we have not only the right means at our disposal but the right mechanisms to act promptly. Mechanisms already exist to turn the common political will of the European Union into military action. The member states have agreed that the Western European Union should support the EU in framing the defence aspects of the common foreign and security policy and that the EU can avail itself of the WEU for operational purposes, relating to the Petersberg tasks, covering humanitarian and rescue operations.
At the Berlin summit in 1996, NATO declared its readiness to provide assets and capabilities to the WEU for European-led operations.

Mr. Blunt: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Spellar: The procedures are cumbersome and we want to consider with our partners and allies whether it might be possible to streamline them to match our aspirations. In other words, once we make a decision, can we be sure that it will lead quickly and effectively to action? That may have institutional implications, but that is not where we are starting from. Our options include breathing new life into the WEU, which is important, but that option has pros and cons.
As we prepare to observe a two-minute silence to remember those who fell or were injured and those who lost loved ones in two world wars and other conflicts during this century, it is right that we recognise the enormous contribution that Europe's security institutions, especially NATO, have made to keeping the peace in Europe over the past 50 years. They remain relevant because they have evolved to reflect changing circumstances. We owe it to succeeding generations to ensure that we continue to work to preserve and to strengthen them. Today, we remember an older generation who secured peace in Europe. Tomorrow, we will continue to work to ensure peace for the next generation.

11 am

Madam Speaker: Order. Let us stand for the two-minute silence.

Madam Speaker: Thank you.

Eastern Region

Mrs. Christine Butler: I am pleased to bring the important subject of the economic development of the east of England region to the notice of the House. Recent legislation will provide for nine English regions, including the east of England, and 1 shall focus on the six counties that will form the east of England region.
I was surprised, and somewhat perturbed, by recent inquiries from the media and others that suggested that they did not know the boundaries of the region. They did not know how many counties it contained and they were not well advised about the new regional development agencies or the regional chambers that will be established and become effective from next year. They also did not know the overall remit of the regional agencies, stakeholders and chambers. Therefore, I propose to outline that remit and inform the House and the wider public about it.
The east of England region comprises Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, Cambridgeshire, Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire, including the unitary authorities of Luton, Southend and Thurrock. The importance of regional development should be obvious to everyone, because the regions will be able to do what Whitehall alone cannot. I remember the days of Harold Wilson and the Invest in Britain Bureau, which did a marvellous job. Since then, we have had Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies, which proved very successful. It is time now for regional devolution to the English regions and for the promotion, especially, of the east of England region.
The board of the regional development agency is now being drawn up and the chairman is Vincent Watts. I congratulate him on his appointment and wish him every success in his endeavours. I hope that he is listening to the debate. The chambers are also being formed and they will be the accountable base in the region. I look forward to the time, perhaps in the next Parliament, when we have regional government with a directly elected chamber.
The new policies have some detractors, but I hope that today's debate will reassure them that the policies are right. The need for a strategic investment and overview, with counties and stakeholders working together for the greater benefit of the entire region, is something no one can deny. The new RDA has the support of the voluntary sector, the Confederation of British Industry, local government, the training and enterprise councils and a range of other stakeholders. They are happy with the new development and wish to see it go even further, as do I.
The regional boards will bring private sector leadership that will help to drive the regional economy forward. The Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 describes the functions of the regional development agencies. They are:
to further the economic development and the regeneration of its area … to promote business efficiency, investment and competitiveness … to promote employment … to enhance the development and application of skills relevant to employment in its area … and to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom where it is relevant to its area to do so.
That last point should be underlined.
The region of the east of England comes 42nd out of 77 regions in Europe for gross domestic product. Until 1995, it was sixth in the UK—those are the latest statistics


that I have found—but I have been told that the situation has improved since then and the region may now lie third. The region is diverse. To the north, it has food processing and huge agricultural interests. Research and development activity is above average, and includes a pharmaceuticals base. It has a defence industry, including firms such as GEC Marconi, which has been a significant influence. Research and development takes place at Ford's huge plant at Dunton near Basildon. A wonderful skills and technology transfer is about to happen, and I welcome the recent developments in that respect in some of our more notable university towns. More needs to be done.
The Cambridge area is one of the region's drivers for science and technology. 1 hesitate to step on the toes of another hon. Member. so I will not to go into too much detail, but I want to describe some of the things that are happening and that need to happen. We face real challenges in respect of our evident weaknesses.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mrs. Butler: Briefly, but I encourage my hon. Friend to make her speech later. If she—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. [Interruption.] Order. The hon. Lady must take her seat when the occupant of the Chair stands. Hon. Members who are speaking should give way or decline interventions immediately not have a mini-debate on the subject.

Mrs. Campbell: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mrs. Christine Butler.

Mrs. Butler: I give way to my hon. Friend.

Mrs. Campbell: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I do not wish to interrupt the flow of her remarkable speech. The growth of high-technology industry in Cambridge and south Cambridgeshire can be an important driver for the region, but it is important to get the infrastructure needed to allow the diffusion of high-tech industry. I hope that we agree that some parts of our region badly need development but are prevented from getting it because high-tech industry is concentrated into a small, congested area around Cambridge.

Mrs. Butler: My hon. Friend is right. Our region is diverse and has disparities within it. Some areas are performing well, some not so well. In general, the better-performing areas are central and the less-well-performing areas are the peripheral and coastal areas and those nearer London. They have problems. In some cases, transportation links are weak. We need increased investment in public transport to supply the rural hinterland around Norwich and Cambridge, and towards the coast, as well as seeking regeneration in the south.
In south Essex, our old infrastructure needs to be tackled. It would help if the east Thames gateway were extended as far as Southend, matching the extension that is developing well in Kent on the other side of the river. We are not foolish enough to believe that that would bring

enormous grant aid, but it would align us with the rest of the corridor. We would be able to bid into the regeneration and seek improvement in south Essex.
The east of England has a diverse economy with no single predominant industry but it has one of the largest concentrations of new and growing businesses. Within that there are significant geographical concentrations in successful industries such as food processing in the north of the region, pharmaceuticals in the south, and biotechnology in the Cambridge area. However, it must be recognised that the region has areas of economic inactivity and low productivity. Some urban, coastal and rural communities have suffered from adverse market changes and deprivation, with low earnings and household income depressing local spending.
The Government offices for the regions have been tasked by the Government to produce a strategy. I have the "East of England Competitiveness Strategy 1998–2008", and I was pleased to see it. Hard work has gone into it and I congratulate the Government office that produced it on its stalwart efforts in getting it in before time. It is a good programme. The background information notes that gross domestic product per capita in the east of England is 92 per cent. of the European average, placing it 42nd of the 77 European regions.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her courtesy in giving way. Does she agree that the document to which she referred is not yet the strategy of the regional development agency, which is not due till next October? Can she venture a project that is to be undertaken by the RDA that would add value to existing activities in the eastern region?

Mrs. Butler: I note what the hon. Gentleman says, but he is saying it to trip me up. I was hoping for a constructive debate. We are present at the imminent birth of something. I am trying to describe the work and research that has gone into what needs to be done and the methods for doing it. It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to shake his head and smile. I note that his party is not enamoured of the strategic approach that can be gained through regions. I think that he is wrong.

Mr. Kerry Pollard: Does my hon. Friend agree that there has been increased inward investment in the region as a direct result of the establishment of the RDA?

Mrs. Butler: My hon. Friend is right, but effective implementation, with the boards and chambers up and running, has not yet happened. It is being readied, but already the interest and the work that has been going on have encouraged investment. Improvements have been made already. I do not have the information with me for the enlightenment of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), but I have read of areas where inward investment has occurred because of that approach.
The aim of the strategy is that, in 10 years, the east of England should be one of the 30 most prosperous regions in Europe. Considerable benchmarking has been going on. The objectives are outlined as follows:
Improving the Performance of Existing Businesses
Attracting and Creating more Businesses


Developing a World Class Workforce
Developing a More Effective Communications Infrastructure
Helping Business to Meet Regulatory Requirements
Economic Development to be Environmentally and Socially Sustainable.
For the next steps for each objective, the competitiveness strategy identifies the key actions that the east of England needs to take. On
Improving the Performance of Existing Businesses",
it identifies:
Promoting Benchmarking
Encouraging Innovation
Preparing for EMU
Developing Expertise in Business Support
Improving Management Training.
It is not a moment too soon. There is a productivity deficit not only in the east of England, but in the entire United Kingdom. By saying that I do not mean to take a shot at the work force—an interpretation that Opposition Members have previously tried to promote, which is dishonourable of them—but to urge improvement of management skills and procedures, and an increase in investment.
To attract and create more businesses, we need to increase inward investment. We need to strengthen support for start-ups, identify sectors for support and arrange local clusters surrounding a dominant industry, whose core needs can be met through a mutual approach to the product of the main business. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) looks puzzled: I am willing to give way if he wants to ask a question.
We need to develop a world-class work force by defining skills needs. That problem requires attention. I have attended several regional forums in which businesses say that, although they have job vacancies, the work force lack the fully developed skills needed to meet the demands of the local labour market.

Mr. Simon Burns: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for inviting me to intervene. She has raised the importance of encouraging business start-ups. As a fellow Essex Member of Parliament, will she tell the House what she thinks has been the significance of the AMT—the regional centre for the advancement of manufacturing and technology—in Essex?

Mrs. Butler: I was a member of Essex county council when the decisions on that and the Konver programmes were being considered. In truth, to judge the benefit of the AMT is not an easy task.

Mr. Burns: Why not?

Mrs. Butler: I shall continue with my speech, because other hon. Members want to make a contribution.
We have skills deficits in certain areas and I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to do what he can to help address those problems. I suggest that what is needed is closer co-operation between further and higher education, as people in certain parts of the region lack ready access to higher education. I congratulate some local institutions that are franchising with further education and thereby

enabling students to undertake higher education courses locally. Anglia polytechnic university, which is an example of a good regional university that is vocationally oriented, offers a model which others might do well to emulate.
It would be wrong to talk about what business can do without addressing what others can do. Two planning conferences—Serplan, the south-east regional planning conference, and SCEALA, the Standing Conference of East Anglian Local Authorities—meet and their remit is wider than the eastern region. I hope that, in future, there will be one planning conference that covers the eastern region as a whole, as that would be helpful.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the marvellous work he has done so far. It is his stated opinion that, within the current proposals and policies and the legislation that is soon to be enacted, there is a promise of evolution. I am pleased about that, but I should like that evolution to develop as fast as possible. Much will depend on the performance of the RDAs and the regional chambers.
I want the funding regime for the RDA to be more generous. I acknowledge the money coming from English Partnerships and the Rural Development Commission and the valuable work of the Government office for the eastern region, but I also want the training and enterprise council budget eventually to go to the RDA, and the TEC and other bodies to have to put in value-added bids. That would be a good way to ensure that the dynamism behind the economic regeneration and future development of the area rests with the RDA; thus, the RDA will be seen as important and powerful, which will attract the right players to it.
I should not like to finish without mentioning transport. If we are not careful, we will bid for too many roads, which would not fit in with the integrated transport White Paper. Instead, we need to reduce the need to travel. Our efforts might take the form of a regional planning guidance note 13, which would try to drive planning towards having transportation corridors, with areas of employment and housing more closely integrated, thereby obviating the need to travel long distances to work. That trend is stronger in our region than anywhere else. Such policy must be developed for the long term because planning takes time and the implementation of plans takes even longer, but we have to start some time and now is as good a time as any.
Given the eastern region's wonderful geographical position within the United Kingdom and Europe, concomitant with proposals for economic development and regeneration in the eastern region must be planning policies that promote sustainability. Those policies must guide the new boards in their promotion of the region for inward investment and relocation of businesses.
Business can help when there is no requirement for workers to be based at a specific site: for example, call centres do not need to be near an airport—they can be located anywhere. Improvements in communication technology will mean that many more businesses are free to relocate. What is needed is the right sort of support for businesses, so that those things can happen and happen more speedily.
I hope that my introduction and broad-brush description of our region—its best points and its inherent weaknesses—will generate further discussion. I shall


enjoy listening to other hon. Members making their contribution this morning. Now that we are about to establish a real identity for the east of England, I hope that stakeholders outside the Chamber will add their voice to the general debate, which I am sure will encourage partnership working in the years to come.

Mr. Bob Russell: I congratulate the hon. Member for Castle Point (Mrs. Butler) on securing this important debate for the eastern region, which, as she said, comprises the six counties of Essex, Suffolk, Norfolk, Cambridgeshire, Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire. They have a combined population of 5 million and the region is therefore bigger than many countries. I do not, however, advocate independence from the United Kingdom. I seek fairness from the Government and the European Union.
The eastern region is the fastest growing in Britain. Not for nothing is it known in government speak as GOER—the Government office for the eastern region. We are all goers in the eastern counties. Between 1981 and 1991, the region's population grew by 6.1 per cent., and an even faster increase of 6.4 per cent. is forecast by 2000, compared with 3.2 per cent. for the country.
With an area of 7,380 square miles or 19,117 square kilometres, the eastern region represents almost 8 per cent. of UK land area. The population is just under 10 per cent. of the UK total. The region, as has been pointed out, is diverse and stretches from the Wash to the Thames, skirting the suburban fringe of Greater London and embracing the finest agricultural land in Britain.
Industrial and commercial centres are located throughout the six counties. New and historic towns and cities are surrounded in most instances by extensive rural areas, which give the eastern region its distinctive urban-rural mix.
The coastline is one of the longest in the country, with major seaports and other maritime interests to be found along it. London's developing third airport is at Stansted. The region has six universities—including the University of Essex, which is Britain's most international university—and one of Britain's largest garrison towns. It has a wide range of industrial and manufacturing industries, one of which, I am pleased to say, has been voted Britain's exporter of the year—Woods Air Movement in my constituency.
Although the region is generally prosperous, there are pockets of serious economic and social deprivation, particularly in areas affected by the decline of traditional industries such as agriculture, fishing and defence, as well as the decline of seaside resorts. Its population, gross domestic product and number of businesses represent around 10 per cent. of UK totals, which makes it easy to relate to national statistics.
Unemployment in September was 3.3 per cent. compared with a UK average of 4.6 per cent. That will be of little comfort to my constituents who were told yesterday that the long-established printing firm of Spottiswoode Ballantyne is to shut with the loss of 140 jobs, along with around 90 jobs being lost at the sister company of Cowells in Ipswich. Also, yesterday, 30 workers at Albany Laundry in Colchester heard that they were to be made redundant, news which follows confirmation of the loss of 60 jobs at the hospital laundry in the town.
While the regional unemployment average is below the national figure, the picture is not even. In Clacton, Harwich, Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft, for example, unemployment is more than double the regional average.
The eastern region needs to draw on its strengths to overcome its weaknesses. I shall leave it to others to concentrate on the problems of agriculture, which remains a dominant feature of the region's prosperity.
The need to improve the transport infrastructure is particularly important. I hope that the Government will push forward with all speed the development of the Eurorail connection at Stratford in east London. The road link between Ipswich and Norwich needs to be upgraded. The Minister's assurance today on those matters would be appreciated.
It is vital that we spread new development more evenly. Some areas are experiencing pressures of growth while others witness decline and deprivation. That balance must take account of the need to retain the best of the region's distinctive qualities: our attractive natural and built environment. We have a diverse economy, and we must maintain that. We have an adaptable work force with good industrial relations.
The eastern region, however, is 42nd out of the 77 regions in the European Union Economic League. We have the potential to make it one of the most prosperous in Europe, as set out in the "East of England Competitiveness Strategy 1998–2008", the launch of which I attended in the summer.
Today's debate provides an opportunity for the 56 Members of Parliament for the eastern region to highlight all that is good in our part of the UK. We look to the Government to treat us fairly and ask for nothing less than an eastern promise.

Mr. Patrick Hall: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Mrs. Butler) on securing this debate, which the Commons Library informs me is the first debate on economic development in the east of England for at least 20 years. That is, perhaps, an interesting comment on the previous Parliament.
I stress the importance of recognising the east of England as a region and ensuring that the region recognises itself. That is not an easy task because, when one leaves the traditional counties of East Anglia and reaches the south-western and western parts of the region, one finds that people do not have a strong regional identity. In Bedford and Kempston, for example, the connections to the west—to Milton Keynes and Northampton—are at least as strong as those to Cambridge in the east. None of those connections is as strong as those to the south—to London.
If we were to adopt a laissez-faire attitude, London would become the regional capital of everywhere that looks to it for one function or another. That region would be huge, disparate and over-dominated by London. It would be difficult for any activity to take place in most parts of the region because people would live there and travel to and from London. There would be suburban deserts with over-congested transport links into and out of the metropolitan centre. That would be the result of bad planning or, more likely, an abdication of planning, leading to economic under-performance and a denial of opportunity for hundreds of thousands of people whose quality of life would be impaired.


In some ways, that is exactly what has happened in past decades. We need, and there is a consensus for, economically dynamic communities across the country, not only in big cities but in towns and villages that have a lot to offer in their own right. We need communities that offer a balance of jobs and social, leisure and educational opportunities. We need communities that enjoy civic pride and care about their area. One of the necessary ingredients for achieving that are strong regions, which offer valuable qualities different from those in London or any other big city.
Today, we have the opportunity to drive forward that process because we have a Government who understand the importance of regional development and who will soon speed up that process through the introduction of regional development agencies.
A strong eastern region will not weaken the special role of London or devalue contacts with any other town or region. It will strengthen those contacts and the country as a whole. We have to make the eastern region work. Much needs to be said about that, but there is not much time for me to elaborate, and I hope that other hon. Members will contribute.
I shall touch on two strategic issues, transport and relative deprivation. The existing transport network illustrates my point. Bedfordshire, for example, is one of the fastest-growing areas of the country in residential development and population growth, yet that has not been matched over the years by investment in the economy, in jobs and in the transport infrastructure. Unbalanced planning has resulted in some of the most heavily congested roads in the east of England, particularly the Al and M1, which are, of course, north-south links.
I am convinced that there are great opportunities along an east-west axis. The eastern region will not prosper unless east-west links are considerably improved. One of the best ways of boosting the eastern region, including my constituency, Bedford, and Kempston, would be to deliver an east-west rail link.
A consortium of local authorities and Railtrack has been working on that project for some years. It is an imaginative proposal for a new rail route running from Ipswich to Cambridge, and then through Bedford, Milton Keynes, Oxford and Swindon, connecting finally to Bristol, with all the important junctions north to south with which that line would connect. It is a fantastic idea.
I understand that a revised business case is being prepared and will be submitted to the Government later this autumn. I hope that it will be sympathetically received, and that Ministers are in no doubt about my support for the concept and for the preferred route through Bedford. In the context of an integrated transport policy and the need to promote environmental sustainability, I hope that an east-west rail link will become attractive for freight as well as for passenger movements.
The second topic that I shall mention briefly, deprivation, is essentially a matter of perception and recognition. The absence of a clear voice for the eastern counties over many years may have assisted in the development of a view in Whitehall and Government circles that there are few problems in the east of England. The impression has been one of general affluence.

There are indeed comfortable villages, towns and suburbs, but there are also pockets of deprivation in both town and country, which are not always recognised by Government statistics.
The index of local deprivation, for example, focuses on whole council areas. Bedford borough ranks 218 out of 354 local authority areas in England in the 1998 index of local deprivation, yet three wards in Bedford rank in the top 10 per cent. of the most deprived wards in England. If one adds deprivation in other wards in Bedford and Kempston, about 30,000 people out of 92,000 in the constituency live in such areas—quite a large pocket. That is not the picture usually associated with Bedford and Kempston or with the eastern region.
I do not wish to detract from efforts to tackle deprivation, social exclusion, unemployment and under-performance in any other part of the country. The Government exist for the many, not just for the few. Therefore, every community deserves recognition, and the needs of every community must be measured more accurately. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to recognise that there are pressing needs in Bedford and Kempston and in the east of England. I am sure that, in the months and years ahead, he will hear more, not less, from me and my hon. Friends about the needs of the east of England.

Mr. Bob Blizzard: I, too, am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Mrs. Butler) secured the debate, and that she spent so much time outlining the region in general, as that allows me to concentrate on my part of it.
For someone born in East Anglia and who represents an East Anglian constituency, it has not been easy to come to terms with the boundaries of the eastern region. Many people in my constituency find it hard to comprehend what Lowestoft has in common with Watford, so it is not surprising that the eastern region has yet to develop its identity fully. Like other Members of Parliament and like business and community leaders in my constituency, I believe that we must make the best of what we have—hence, my support for the debate, to help to establish the identity of the eastern region in the House and further afield.
I strongly support a regional dimension to politics and government. That is important for the devolution of over-centralised power in this country, and in order to answer the West Lothian question and to position ourselves effectively in Europe, something that our region has not done in the past but is now beginning to do. There is strong support from business in my constituency for the new regional development agency, and we have high hopes of its tackling the problems in our part of the region.
As has been said, the outstanding features of the eastern region's economy are its diversity and disparities. It is generally seen as a prosperous region, but there are unemployment black spots. Lowestoft in my constituency, and the neighbouring town of Great Yarmouth, have suffered and continue to suffer, perhaps more than any other towns. We have long had the highest unemployment figures in the region. They move up and down, but they are always at least twice the regional average and three times the rate in the areas with the best figures. Unemployment is accompanied by low pay, deprivation, poor health and higher crime.


People in my constituency ask, "Why us? Why must we suffer?" They are loyal and hard working, there are good industrial relations and low labour costs, plenty of cheap industrial land is available, and the area is a nice place to live. Lowestoft officially has the best beach in England and we have the Broads national park—a pleasant environment.
However, for the past 15 years, people in my area have suffered unacceptable employment levels and a depressed economy. It is important to analyse the reasons for that decline. We have lost our traditional industries and therefore thousands of jobs. In Lowestoft, we have lost two shipyards and two food canning factories. Many hon. Members will remember the old Co-op brand name Waveney, which gave its name to my constituency. It exists no longer. The Eastern Coach Works was once the largest employer, but that has gone too, as has a shoe factory. Hon. Members will be familiar with the decline in fishing. Once, one could walk right across Lowestoft harbour on the boats lined up next to one another. Now we have just 10 trawlers and 30 smaller inshore vessels. Our inner harbour area contains acres of dereliction, with factories empty or razed to the ground.
We have benefited to some extent from the cushion provided by the offshore oil and gas industry, but jobs there are being reduced. We have had the cost reduction initiative for the new era—CRINE—and unfortunately 140 jobs were lost at Shell's Lowestoft base two weeks ago.
Our part of the region has not succeeded in attracting new industries on a significant scale. Why? I am pleased that other hon. Members have drawn attention to the poor transport links. East Anglia is usually not seen as a peninsula because of its rounded shape, but if one drew a map showing travelling time rather than travelling distance, the peninsula would be greatly extended, possibly right across the North sea.
People in my area were disappointed by the roads review. We feel that we are condemned to continue with roads no better than winding country lanes, clogged up with tractors and with trucks passing through villages— which neither the truck drivers want to do, nor the villagers want to suffer. Our regional newspaper, the Eastern Daily Press, refers to life in the "slow lane". Our branch line railways are no better: it can take longer to travel by rail than by road. That affects business competitiveness in our area. I hope that the forthcoming competitiveness White Paper will recognise the degree to which transport costs and travelling time affect competition.
Transport accounts for a significant proportion of business costs. It is an instrument and an engine of economic development—not just an environmental inconvenience. Ironically, Lowestoft exists because it is a port—in fact, it is the country's most easterly port and has enormous potential as it points straight at Europe. There is container business at the port, which also handles grain imports and exports. Although a port integrates sea and land transport, it cannot operate successfully unless the land transport is adequate. We look forward to improvements in our road and rail transport. East-west links are important, but with only one such link, along the A14 corridor, the northern and eastern parts of the region would be further marginalised.
In order to attract new business, we must offer companies some incentive to relocate to our part of the region. Lowestoft does not have assisted area status and, without it, it is difficult for the council to summon the resources to provide a reason for companies to relocate there. As a former council leader, I dealt with companies that were seriously interested in relocating to the area. However, because we could offer them no real incentive to do so, they often went somewhere else.
It is a travesty of justice that, under the previous Government, Lowestoft did not receive assisted area status—although it was granted to Great Yarmouth. The previous Government realised their mistake and cobbled together some European structural funds, to the extent that Lowestoft was redefined as a rural area and received objective 5b funding. In terms of regional strategy, anyone can see that Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth must be considered together. The answer is to give them both assisted area status and European structural funds, so that the areas that have suffered for so long can be regenerated properly. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) would have said the same thing today had he not been attending to other duties in his constituency.
We need a sub-regional strategy for the north and the east of our region, which suffer the most economic deprivation. There is a deeply held feeling that the previous Government severely neglected our area. When one lives on the coast—out on a limb—one is always anxious lest one be forgotten. This Government must not make the same mistake as the previous Government. The regional development agency must recognise our area as a priority and support us with financial measures. If the Government ensure that outcome, they will retain the confidence of people in my local area.

Miss Melanie Johnson: I draw hon. Members' attention to my registered interest with Roche, a pharmaceutical company in my constituency. It gives me great pleasure to contribute to this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Mrs. Butler) on her success in securing it. Regional development agencies herald the advent of a new era in this country and propose a new identity for the eastern region. They are extremely welcome.
I hope that hon. Members from all political parties will fight with equal vigour and enthusiasm on behalf of the eastern region and its new identity. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) nods his head. I congratulate him on his 100 per cent. support for the region. I also congratulate my hon. Friends on their enthusiastic support for the debate. However, I am disappointed to see only two Conservative Members in the Chamber—although almost twice as many Conservative Members as Labour Members represent the region. I am sorry that the Opposition have not made a positive contribution to the debate, and I hope that hon. Members from both sides of the Chamber will make such a contribution in future.
The eastern region comprises examples of the United Kingdom's strengths and many of its weaknesses. I believe that problems, and many answers, can be found in the region.

Mr. Burns: rose

Miss Johnson: I will not give way as there is not sufficient time.


Hertfordshire, where my constituency is located, is an area of skills and relative affluence. It is important to stress the word "relative", because I shall touch on some points raised by other hon. Members this morning—particularly the two previous contributions. Unemployment in Hertfordshire is at its lowest since 1991, and owner-occupation in Hertfordshire is well above the national and regional averages. One factor contributing to that result is the strength of the pharmaceutical base in the region.
More than 2,000 companies undertake pharmaceutical research and development, and a slightly greater number are involved in manufacturing and production. An estimated £900 million was spent on research and development in 1997, and 1996 figures for the region place the value of industry exports at more than £1.6 billion. Interestingly, the region's pharmaceutical industry contributes to the economy by generating an extra gross domestic product of £2 billion a year.
The pharmaceutical industry and other industries are attracted to the area—there are four very active pharmaceutical companies in my constituency—by our highly skilled work force. Some 80 per cent. of the population in Hertfordshire are classified in social groups 1, 2 or 3. Hon. Members can see that industry is drawing on a highly skilled base, which I know that the Government want to see replicated elsewhere in the region and the country. We must increase the skills base and thus boost the economic returns of industry.
However, those statistics and other indices often conceal inequalities. My hon. Friends the Members for Bedford (Mr. Hall) and for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) spoke eloquently about the way in which those indices disguise the poverty in their constituencies. The situation in my constituency is no different. One in 10 of Hertfordshire's electoral wards has been assessed, on the basis of wide-ranging factors, as being more deprived than the United Kingdom national average. There are 19 deprived wards in Hertfordshire, and areas of concern include unemployment and poor housing conditions. We must take those factors into account when compiling a picture of the region's needs and we must combat those pockets of deprivation while building on the region's economic strengths.
We must recognise, too, the region's diversity—although, sad to say, the region has lost much of that. The once large British Aerospace presence in my constituency is now a vacant site. That traditional industry employed thousands of people in my constituency but it was decimated in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and its 896-acre site is now scheduled for development. That site could be used for housing, to create employment or for university use. We must encourage those sorts of interests in the region on a large scale.
The Minister will not be surprised if I turn to another theme common to those sketched by earlier contributors to the debate. Development of the site—I hope that it will commence within a year or so—is dependent upon improved east-west communications. The site cannot be developed without substantial support for local public transport and better east-west communications. The county council in Hertfordshire, and my colleagues there and in neighbouring counties, are keen to see the central

Herts passenger transport scheme receive active support from the Government. That scheme is vital if we are to ensure that major sites such as this are developed and the local and national economies strengthened as a result. We need the link through Watford, St. Albans and through Welwyn Hatfield on towards the east to ensure that massive developments on hundreds of acres, involving housing and nearly 50 hectares for employment, can get under way.
We need to be sure that we have a new deal that will take account of the ambiguities and diversity of the eastern region. My hon. Friend the Minister has heard the good news and the bad this morning. He has heard about the areas where we are strong and the things that we need to tackle. We welcome the Government's approach. Their collaborative approach recognises that all the counties in the region and Hertfordshire can be a model for other areas to emulate, given the way they work together, and the way in which these issues can be dealt with. However, it needs to be recognised that affluence is still to be found alongside pockets of poverty.
I hope that transport will be recognised as one of the key factors. We have the tools to do much of the job ourselves, but we need a transport infrastructure and an integrated transport system that will ensure that progress is made.
It is good to know that Opposition Members who have not contributed to the debate have remained silent to allow Labour Members to speak for longer. I thank the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) particularly and his Opposition Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), for their generosity in that regard. However, I hope that the Opposition will be better represented in fighting the case for an exciting region that has a whole lot going for it. My colleagues and I think that it has a bright and promising future, with the Government's full support.

Dr. George Turner: The contributions of my hon. Friends have emphasised the diversity of need within the region. In looking to economic development, we need to recognise that a priority is to protect what we have as well as considering the new that we need to develop.
It would be remiss in a debate on the region, which includes some of the best agricultural land in the country, not to make some reference to the needs of farming. The House has spent some time on the issue in recent weeks and I do not need to rehearse the many difficulties that the farming community faces. In the part of Norfolk that I represent, which was at the heart of the agriculture revolution, the main farming interests remain arable. Therefore, we have not suffered to the same extent as the livestock and dairy industries. However, there is no area of farming in recent times that has completely escaped difficulty.
I have been reminded regularly by the farming community—most recently at a meeting with Tom Pexton, the deputy president of the National Farmers Union, Nick Velsboer, the local chairman, and others—of the wide range of problems that it faces. I am confident, following the debate on farming last week, that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is aware of the difficulties and is arguing the case


in the Cabinet for a set of measures to tackle the immediate issues. Yes, we need urgent action; but I tell the Government that that action needs to be part of a coherent package. It is important that we use extra money to modernise and adapt farming to the needs of the next millennium rather than to postpone problems. We need to address Agenda 2000 and tackle the greater world trade problems that I believe will face farming. I was extremely pleased, at the meeting with the NFU, to hear that local farmers, while in anguish about their problems, recognise that the Government's role is to help them address the future of agriculture.
Agriculture is three and a half times more important in my constituency than the national average. The devastation of the work available in agriculture since the second world war means that it now represents only about 5 per cent. of the economy in my constituency. Those who would see Norfolk as a place for the landed gentry and for tourism may not recognise that 95 per cent. of those who live in the county are dependent on work in industry, commerce and the service industries. That is much the same as elsewhere. When taking averages over large swathes of countryside it is easy not to appreciate that some of the wards in my constituency face needs and problems as great as those anywhere in the land. I hope that the Government, through the regional mechanism, will ensure that pockets of deprivation which seem small when averaged out but which locally are extremely important to those who have to face them, are tackled.
Our needs for industry have in recent times shared much in common with the needs of the rest of the country. I regret to say that, only this morning, the financial press is reporting that the important local company Porvair, which is at the forefront of the manufacture of microporous materials and which exports 80 per cent. of what it produces out of King's Lynn, is facing a 14 per cent. reduction in the work force because of the problems that it has experienced in world markets-owing to the high value of the pound and high interest rates. However, the picture is not all gloom and John Morgan, the chairman of Porvair, believes that the company can adjust, improve productivity, face new challenges and move forward. The same applies to most of the industry in my constituency.
The specific problems that we face in the region have already been mentioned. I challenge any Minister or shadow Minister to take the A47—a recognised trans-European road from Peterborough, through Thorney to Wisbech on the way to King's Lynn—and to feel that it does not need improvement. I accept that, nationally, the balance may have been badly struck between the need to meet traffic demand and the need to have measures to reduce traffic. However, no one can come to northern East Anglia without recognising the need not only for more than one east-west link along the A14 but for dramatic improvements and a dramatic change to Governments' attitudes of the past 20 years.
Last week, during the debate on agriculture, the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) referred to the Government's being inactive while Rome burned. The question that the Opposition need to address in terms of agriculture and the countryside is: who lit the fires that are burning? Our inheritance of problems in the region reflects decades of neglect of infrastructure. It is extremely difficult to entice investment to one's region to

provide jobs for the future and to protect the jobs that are already there unless the Government recognise the needs of those who have never been served by decent roads.
The need for improved roads must be firmly grasped, while the Government must recognise the need in the urban environment to encourage less use of the motor car. I hope that the Government will recognise also—I was among the first to welcome the investment in rural transport provision in the Budget—that we shall never be in a position in rural areas to reduce people's need for the car to get to work and get about generally. That is why we have a high percentage of car ownership in my constituency; it is not because people are wealthy, but because there is no alternative. When we count the number of buses by the week, the exhortation to get on the bus by driving up petrol prices, with no counterbalancing action from the Government, is just not fair to my constituents.
I am sure that the regional development agency and regional government will be important ways forward because, by co-operating within our regions, we can achieve more than by bickering about what goes where. I hope that we will come to sensible compromises on where offices will be located and on priorities to ensure that we do not neglect the minority simply because of the constant need to address the needs of the majority in the region.

Mr. Simon Burns: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Castle Point (Mrs. Butler) on securing this debate, which is extremely important for all of us who have constituencies in the eastern region. How refreshing it is to have had an intelligent debate divorced of the normal party political bickering that, all too often, blights discussions in this Chamber.
I begin by concentrating my remarks primarily on my county of Essex, which, in many ways, is the gateway not only to East Anglia, but to the eastern region. In the southern part of the eastern region, we are fortunate to have a work force that, as one hon. Member has mentioned, is good, well skilled in many sectors and has excellent industrial relations; so it is an area that is attractive for employment and employees, even if we do not enjoy the status in relation to assistance and regional aid that other parts of the country have.
We have a good communications network. That is not exclusive to the whole region, as we have heard from a number of hon. Members.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the great constraints on development in the eastern region is the mess that his Government left behind by eroding public transport, which makes it impossible to get from one side of the region to the other?

Mr. Burns: When I allowed that intervention, I feared that we were going to get something that was slightly out of sync with the rest of the debate—and my fears were fully justified. I do not share that poisoned and poisonous view.
In the southern part of the region, we are fortunate in that we have a good transport communications network: the M25, the M11, the A12 and the improvements that, I hope, the Minister's Department will approve shortly to


the A130. We have an improving rail network. About 7,000 of my constituents commute every day to London to work. Improvements in signalling, points and rolling stock over the past decade have greatly enhanced rail transport from mid-Essex.
That does not mean to say, as many hon. Members have pointed out, that no further improvements have to be made. Improvements must be made on the Al2 from the M25 to the ports of Harwich and Felixstowe. It is an important feeder road to those ports and beyond. As the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) said, the roads in Norfolk, although improving in certain areas, leave much scope for improvement.
As a number of hon. Members have said, we need improvements in the infrastructure of the railways. There has been talk of an east-west route from Ipswich through Welwyn Hatfield, Bedford, for which a bid was placed, Milton Keynes and towards Bristol. Given our closer economic and business development ties with Europe and the enhancement of the ports on the eastern seaboard, we need—this is overdue—improvements in that transportation to enhance the general economic well-being and attractiveness of the region, so that we can attract more businesses to it.
We have excellent academic facilities in the region. My own university, the Anglia Polytechnic university, is first rate. The university of Essex, the university of East Anglia in Norwich and, of course, the university of Cambridge in the constituency of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) are vital in developing links.

Miss Melanie Johnson: The university of Hertfordshire.

Mr. Burns: We have another bid—the university of Hertfordshire. Those universities are important centres of excellence for working and developing links—in both training and product research and development—with local industries. More work must be done to build on the successes.

Dr. Ian Gibson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Burns: I will not, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, because I have only five minutes. I do not want to eat into the Minister's time.
There is a problem in my county, not exclusively in my constituency, because it also affects the constituency of the hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith) and, I suspect, the Colchester area as well. Essex towns such as Chelmsford, Colchester and Basildon have a manufacturing base that one does not naturally associate with the leafy green suburbs of the home counties; the size of that manufacturing base has perhaps been unusual.
We are proud of that tradition, but many of those manufacturing companies are defence-related industries. In the past eight years in particular, with the ending of the cold war, the worldwide recession of the early 1990s and a greatly increased competitive world market, pressures have been exerted on companies to compete in those markets and to win contracts. We have paid a high price for the peace dividend, with significant redundancies being made in those defence-related industries.
Those companies have had the foresight to diversify, to protect and, in many ways, to expand their core base, but we have had to pay a price. We have been fortunate. I pay tribute here to Essex county council, under the control of all three main political parties over the past eight years, to the previous Government through the Department of Trade and Industry, and to this Government for the way in which they worked with the European Union to designate Essex an area that qualified for Konver funding, in relation to both Konver 1 and 2. That led to developments such as the advanced manufacturing centre in Chelmsford.
The centre has done critical and crucial work to help defence-related industry employees who have been made redundant to reskill and to retrain, and to give them the opportunity to use their skills and expertise to help to build small businesses. That is an important way forward, which puts back some of the goodness that has been taken away with the redundancies in the local economy; it starts off the small businesses of today that, I hope, will be the medium businesses of tomorrow and the larger employers of the future.
That is the way in which I would like further development to enhance the local manufacturing base. We do not want a constant erosion of that base to the point where a local community's employment base has been shifted significantly from a mix of services and manufacturing to services alone.
Not only in Essex, but throughout the region, we have to ensure that we promote ourselves as an area that is vibrant—that has much to offer both in its living environment and cultural events—so that people want to relocate there. More often than not, for financial reasons, companies will locate in areas where there are substantial Government grants through regional aid.
The east of England is a success story; it has a vibrant community. We must build on the work of many local authorities and other organisations and sell the region to ensure that we get our fair share of inward investment. We do not want to lose any more industries. Over the past 20 years, many have moved to other parts of the country because of financial benefits and local tax breaks.
I do not share the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Castle Point for regional development agencies, although we will have to await the establishment of our RDA next year to see whether it produces any concrete achievements. I disagree with her views on regional government —it would be another layer of pure bureaucracy, which would stifle rather than enhance the enterprise and initiative of business and commerce. I suspect that she and I will never agree on that matter.
I again thank the hon. Lady for giving us the opportunity to debate this important subject. I shall now sit down so that the Minister has a reasonable time to respond to the debate.

The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Mrs. Butler) on securing the debate. I am delighted that she has chosen this subject. The contributions from the Labour Benches have been very thoughtful and have done credit to the region. I do not want to introduce a sour note to the debate, but Labour has 22 Members representing the


region and the Opposition 33 Members, yet not one Conservative Member has participated in the debate—other than the Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). They do not take the future of their region as seriously as do Labour Members—and, indeed, the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell), 100 per cent. of the Liberal Democrat representation in the region. Before the general election, Labour had four seats in the region; it now has 22. No doubt we will have even more after the next general election.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point rightly pointed out, the east of England is seen as a relatively prosperous region making a significant contribution to the United Kingdom economy. However, there is great concern that the region is not performing to its full potential—a point made by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford. If we take gross domestic product per head as a measure of performance, the region lies only 42nd out of 77 European regions. That is a legacy that the previous Government left us and we are determined to put it right.
In fact, if the London effect is stripped out, the region is below average in prosperity relative to the UK. On a workplace basis, GDP figures put the region after London, the south-east, Scotland, the south-west and the east midlands and only just ahead of the north-west. On a residence basis, which allows for the income brought into the region by commuters to London, the region is above the UK average with an index score of 109, behind only London and the south-east. However, on both measures, the relative score of the region has been on a downward trend over the past five years.
The region is highly varied. It incorporates the northern fringe of Greater London, medium industrial and commercial centres, and ports and seaside resorts, which have been described in the debate. It has no major conurbations, but a variety of new and historic towns and cities and extensive rural areas. It has areas of prosperity and growth, but also areas of real deprivation. It combines traditional manufacturing and agricultural industries with leading-edge technology and knowledge-based industry. Expenditure on research and development is 3.5 per cent. of GDP—the highest of any UK region.
However, the region is vulnerable and, as has been described in the debate, unfortunately there have been some job losses recently. That said, over the past 18 months there have been major new investments and real growth in the region, especially in retail, computing and financial services. Overall, employment is still increasing and the unemployment rate continues to decrease, remaining below the national average in every county in the region.
As has been said many times, the east of England is a relatively new region. It brings together East Anglia with the home counties of Bedfordshire, Essex and Hertfordshire. The region is, of course, still building its identity. I am greatly encouraged by the activity of partnership groups in the region, which have worked together in recent months to ensure that the East of England regional development agency—to be known as the EEDA—gets off to the best possible start. Local groups are working together to develop and implement regional strategies in key areas such as competitiveness and skills. All that activity has made a

real contribution to partnership working in the region across a very wide range of interests, and through that to strengthening the region's identity.
I know from my visits to the region that there is a real enthusiasm in the east of England for the principle of a development agency and for a stake in its activity. That has been shown by the fact that we have received more than 400 high-calibre applications for the 12 seats on the board and almost 100 applications for the post of chief executive. The agency will be able to build on that commitment and activity to develop a fully integrated approach to regional development, both at a strategic level and at the coal face—although for this region it is the high-tech face—where local delivery organisations play such a key role.
A key task of the agency will be to produce a regional strategy to meet its responsibilities, including economic development and regeneration, employment and development skills, and sustainable development. That is in contrast to what was said by the Opposition spokesman, who adequately laid the problems of the region before the House, but not the way to resolve them. We are doing that—

Mr. Lansley: How will the development agency's strategy document interact with the agreement on PPG6 covering Cambridgeshire, Norfolk and Suffolk, as that is to be concluded before the RDA sets out its strategy?

Mr. Caborn: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, when I get to the relevant part of my speech I will deal with the plan, which is important.
The EEDA will need to take an integrated approach to producing its strategies and have regard to the needs of the east of England—urban and rural, sub-regional and local. We strongly believe that an integrated and inclusive approach is the best way to improve regional economic performance and to break down what I believe are artificial barriers between the rural and urban areas.
Our aim in the draft guidance on regional strategies has been to provide a steer to RDAs in producing their strategies, without being over-prescriptive and unnecessarily tying their hands. The strategies should not simply restate national policies, but will need to be relevant to the region and address its specific problems and the underlying structural weaknesses in terms of wealth creation.
Land use and transport issues are especially important in the east of England, where a combination of rapid population growth and economic development on the one hand, and rural decline and defence closures on the other, have created conflicting demands and pressures on the infrastructure. Again, that was adequately described in the debate.
I am very pleased that the first of the new public examinations of regional planning guidance will be in the east of England, when the Standing Conference of East Anglian Local Authorities hearing takes place in February. That will be followed in May by the south-east regional planning committee hearing. Those hearings will provide an opportunity for everyone—including hon. Members—to have their say before final decisions are taken. PPG6 will be taken into consideration in the plan as it develops for the eastern region. We are trying to bring together the economic strategic overview for the


eastern region with spacial planning and transport planning. We will then have a strategic overview of what is necessary in the eastern region.
The regional planning conferences are also beginning the vital new task of preparing integrated transport strategies, which will link on the one hand with the four-month modal studies that we have announced in the east of England, and on the other with the new integrated local transport plans. After that round is over, we shall begin the process of realigning the regional planning structure to match the new regions. Local authorities in the eastern region are already co-operating across the boundaries of SCEALA and SERPLAN, and RDAs will become another partner working in close co-operation with local government on planning and transport issues as it develops economic strategy. Such partnerships are where the impact on transport in the east-west corridor can be argued out, and they will inform Government policy. It is a bottom-up approach, working in partnership.
I have not been able in this debate to go into too much detail about RDAs. Nevertheless, when they begin functioning next April, they will make a significant difference in regions' ability to plan for the future. The eastern RDA will not only manage change but will develop the eastern region's assets, to ensure that it achieves the status that it wants as one of the best and most productive regions in the European Union. I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point for initiating the debate, which has been very useful.

Residential Care Homes

Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am most grateful for this timely opportunity to raise an issue of considerable importance to my constituents. That importance was emphasised only a fortnight ago, when I received a letter from the Cambridgeshire and Huntingdon local medical committee, which wished to raise with me precisely the same issues that I shall raise in this debate. I should like first to take this opportunity-my first opportunity-to welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box. He has onerous and important responsibilities—especially so given the forthcoming social services White Paper. I wish him well in meeting those responsibilities.
I shall do three things in this debate: first, highlight the impact of underprovision of residential care homes in South Cambridgeshire; secondly, demonstrate that, despite the benefit of measures being pursued by the health authority and Cambridgeshire county council social services, an increase in core funding for social services is necessary to prevent deterioration in the position; and, thirdly, draw specific attention to the circumstances arising from the proposed closure of the Red Cross-owned Meadowcroft residential care home in my constituency.
Let me first explain the nature of the problem. In August, and at intermediate times during the summer, Addenbrooke's hospital in my constituency and other local hospitals have been closed to non-emergency admissions. Such summer closures have been unprecedented in recent times. The nature of the problem underlying the closures is demonstrated by the fact that 160 patients
–160 beds is almost equivalent to five hospital wards—in the local national health service system have been assessed as no longer requiring hospital care but remain in hospital beds.
About 83 of those hospital patients are awaiting placement in nursing or residential care homes. Additionally, Cambridgeshire county council has told me that 117 people are receiving care packages in the community who should be placed in residential or nursing home places. The council is unable to place those people. I know from personal conversations with some of those involved that some of those waiting in hospital are waiting not only for residential care places but for home adaptations that would allow them to return home.
Why has the problem continued? Additional money has been provided to deal with winter pressures, and I am sure that the Minister will give us further details on proposals for dealing with the coming winter. In the past three years, my health authority has provided Cambridgeshire social services department with £2.3 million to deal with explicit winter pressures. For the winter ahead, the health authority has provided £1.2 million to the social services department, and, because of announcements and allocations made in recent days, even more may be allocated.
The character of the funding provided in winter pressures money does not meet all the problems and, in some respects, may even exacerbate them. Places were purchased after winter pressures money was provided by the health authority to social services last winter, for example, creating a recurrent revenue implication that has to be borne by Cambridgeshire county council social services. This year, the cost is estimated at £400,000,


which will have to come out of the money available to social services, thereby reducing its ability to do other things.
At the same time as winter pressures money was being provided through the health authority, Cambridgeshire county council's social services standard spending assessment was cut by £1 million, not in real terms but in cash. The Government are therefore effectively giving with one hand while taking away with the other.
Meanwhile, pressures are increasing. The number of placements to homes is rising and the population of those over 85 is increasing in Cambridgeshire faster than in neighbouring counties. Although it is a happy fact that residents in homes are living longer, that is creating additional funding pressures. Additionally, more residents are exhausting their savings to below the £16,000 limit, to the point at which they effectively become a first charge on social services departments. That has happened in 32 cases so far this year.
Cambridgeshire social services is doing what it can. It is supporting the elderly at home; trying to prevent admissions; being flexible in its review of care packages; and attempting to turn some of the available respite care beds into intermediate and convalescent beds, thereby allowing hospital discharge. The county council is consulting on a proposal to privatise remaining local authority provision of residential home places, as that would enable it to purchase about four residential home places for each three places that it currently provides in its own homes.
There is, however, an underlying problem of underprovision to the social services department. Provision to neighbouring counties may demonstrate the point. In 1996–97—the last year for which I have comparable figures for counties in the eastern region—in total on residential care, home support and nursing care, Cambridgeshire was spending £467 for each 75-year-old or older resident in the population. The figure was £840 for Hertfordshire, £908 for Norfolk, £925 for Suffolk and £1,075 for Bedfordshire.
The Minister and those of us who know Cambridgeshire well will know that Cambridgeshire social services has a particular requirement to focus its activities on children's services and to support its child protection activity. The county council is taking that responsibility extremely seriously, and that is partly influencing its distribution of funds within social services. However, that is only part of the story.
The principal determinant of the county council's ability to spend on services to the elderly remains provision of finance as dictated by the standard spending assessment. The Minister will realise that Cambridgeshire county council is capped at an extraordinarily low spend level, and that it therefore lacks the discretion to go further in increasing its overall resources.
I ask the Minister to do three things. The first is to enhance Cambridgeshire's standard spending assessment in the forthcoming round, to the point at which the county council's social services department is able to meet the responsibilities that it incurs. The second—on the process of winter pressures money being provided to assist in ending delay in discharging patients from acute hospital beds—is to end ad hoc funding and to make funding reflect the continuing revenue costs of such placements. The third is to end the process whereby the Government

are effectively paying for social services activity with health money—whereby health care funds are being diverted into social care. Such a diversion of funds has adverse effects on a health authority's ability to use the resources with which it is provided for health rather than social services.
I hope that I have demonstrated that there is an underlying problem of a lack of residential home care places in South Cambridgeshire. I shall refer in particular to Meadowcroft home in Trumpington, which is not a local authority home, but is owned by the Red Cross. It formerly had some 20 places, but, in March 1997, the Red Cross decided that it should close—at a time when South Cambridgeshire can scarcely afford to lose residential care places.
The Red Cross has presented three arguments as to why it is necessary to close Meadowcroft. The first was that it was non-viable. It is clear that it was once perfectly viable, but the decisions to run the home down, not to take additional placements to reduce the number of residents and to discontinue a contract with the Lifespan community trust for two respite care beds have made it no longer viable. Secondly, it was argued that the home needed considerable investment to bring it up to registration standards. As a royal charter body, the Red Cross is not required to bring its homes up to registration standards. It would be desirable to do so if it were planned for the home to provide long-term care for new residents, but the existing residents see absolutely no reason for their living standards to be changed. Thirdly, it was argued that the remaining residents could and should be moved as it would be in their interests. However, it is perfectly apparent that they do not need full-time nursing care. Meadowcroft is a residential care home, not a nursing home, and is perfectly capable of supporting its residents.
After a period of rundown, Meadowcroft has only four remaining residents, all over 90-years-old. Two of them were among the first lady medical practitioners in Cambridge, who were part of a three-handed practice before the war. Dr. Margaret Reed is 98 years old and Dr. Joan Cooper is 106 years old. Last week, Dr. Cooper told me that she qualified as a medical practitioner in 1920. They are distinguished constituents of mine and they have provided a considerable service to the local community and to the Red Cross in the past.
I understand—not least because I have spoken to those who took the decision—that the decision to close the home was made with good intentions and that the Red Cross seeks to focus its activities on short-term emergency care. However, I continue to contend that bureaucracies and committees are capable of making decisions that individuals would not make. If one asked the individuals involved whether they thought it right that, after 15 years residence at Meadowcroft, Dr. Cooper, who is 106 years old—although she is by no means frail for her age—should be moved as a consequence of a desire to close the home, no doubt they would reply no, but I fear that bureaucracies will continue to say yes. The time has come for that to stop.
I feel quite strongly about Meadowcroft: very frail or elderly people have been moved from places where they were happy and which they regarded as their home and, as the Minister knows, that can have adverse effects. Even if, viewed objectively—and not least by bureaucracies—a move is to better or more appropriate circumstances, it can be in the interests of the individuals concerned to


remain in familiar surroundings where they are happy and content. Anyone visiting the Meadowcroft home in Trumpington will know that the residents are perfectly happy there and that they are well settled and looked after and capable of being sustained there if the Red Cross cares to sustain them.
I call on the Red Cross to fulfil the expectations of the residents; the intention of the original trust deed established by Lady Ida Darwin in 1946, under which a substantial bequest was made; and subsequent benefactions. I do not believe for a moment that any charitable donor to the Red Cross would begrudge its meeting its obligations in that way, especially as the home has made considerable contributions to Red Cross finances in the past.
I thank the House and the Minister for listening to these related issues. I hope that the Minister will recognise and respond to the problems experienced by south Cambridgeshire and my constituents relating to the provision of social services and the placements into residential home care beds. I hope that the Red Cross will listen to the debate and change its mind about its proposal to close the Meadowcroft home early next year and to require my constituents to move to alternative accommodation.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on securing a debate on this important subject, and thank him for his generous words of welcome at the beginning of his speech.
The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of issues around residential care. In doing so, he has emphasised the links with the national health service. He is right to do so. In Cambridge, as elsewhere, the NHS is an integral part of community care. He also raised the issue of the closure of the Meadowcroft home in Trumpington, to which I shall refer later.
It may help if I begin by talking about the aim of community care, which is to provide the support that frail or vulnerable people need to live in their own homes or homely settings, retaining the independence, dignity and quality of life that come from being a part of the community. Social services, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, have a central role here, but as one of several partners, along with housing authorities and the NHS. Each partner needs to understand the others and to draw effectively on their contribution to overall care provision.
Social services have the lead in community care planning. In Cambridgeshire, as elsewhere, that is about planning and commissioning a balanced range of services—including residential care—to enable authorities locally to meet the assessed care needs of individual service users.
People's needs do not recognise organisational boundaries. That was one of the themes of the hon. Gentleman's speech. In the case of older people particularly, they are often complex. They also change both in the short term and over a longer period. Following a period in hospital, people may need additional support, perhaps from the community health

service, if they are to return to their homes; or they may need a residential care place if discharge is not to be delayed or unnecessary readmission caused. We need to consider residential care provision within the broad context of community care services, mapping out the key links with the NHS, housing and other agencies.
In planning residential care, in Cambridgeshire as elsewhere, what is important is joined-up thinking in the wider community care and health context. Residential and nursing home care provision is closely linked with hospital discharge arrangements, rehabilitation services, domiciliary support and current work on prevention.
The interdependence of health and social care make it essential that the provider agencies collaborate effectively in service planning and commissioning, assessment and delivery, and not least, funding. Section 28A of the National Health Service Act 1977 has long been a key funding mechanism enabling health authorities to support social services. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want to give the impression that the new Government are approaching the issue any differently from their predecessor. That mechanism includes supporting residential and nursing home placements through "dowries" and similar payments in respect of people transferring out of long-stay hospitals, and supporting innovative cross-agency service.
We are providing a positive agenda of change. Joined-up thinking and partnership between health and local government run through our agenda. We have an ambitious programme of review and reform including the royal commission on long-term care, the forthcoming social services White Paper and our charter on long-term care. Other examples include the better services for vulnerable people initiative and "Partnership in Action: New Opportunities for Joint Working Between Health and Social Services", the recent discussion document trailed in last year's "The New NHS" White Paper. It might be helpful to say a little about that context before returning specifically to residential care, to social services funding and to arrangements in South Cambridgeshire.
Collaboration between local authorities and the NHS is considered in detail in the recent discussion paper "Partnership in Action", which sets out plans for a new statutory duty of partnership. Much of the paper is about collaborative funding mechanisms, such as proposals for the new NHS Bill to provide for health and social services to pool budgets, delegate functions and resources to each other in lead commissioning arrangements or develop integrated provision of services. It also envisages a significant widening of health authority powers under section 28A of the 1977 Act, with funding going to local authorities in support of objectives set out in health improvement programmes.
Last December, following our manifesto commitment, we established a royal commission on the funding of long-term care for elderly people. The commission is looking at demographics and future levels of need, different models of provision and how it should be funded. The commission is due to report around the end of the year.
Last year, in an executive letter, "Better Services for Vulnerable People", we set out the medium-term agenda for people with continuing health and social care needs. The circular asked local and health authorities to take forward work in three areas: first, drawing up joint


investment plans; secondly, establishing a national framework for multi-disciplinary assessments of older people in acute and community health settings, carried out jointly with social services; and thirdly, developing a range of recuperation and rehabilitation services for older people.
Further guidance on the better services initiative was issued in August by the NHS executive and the Department's social care regions. Joint investment plans are a distillation of the health improvement plan and community care planning information. They bring together in a single document the joint information needed for health and social services to deliver on their respective responsibilities. The recent guidance requires health and local authorities to have JIPs in place by April 1999, as a minimum, for older people, including those with mental health problems.
Multi-disciplinary assessments by health and social services have always been a joint responsibility in community care. More effective multi-disciplinary assessment means better co-ordination of care services. In the community, it may avoid unnecessary hospital admission and allow older people to remain in their own homes for longer; within the hospital setting, good multi-disciplinary assessments may avoid an unnecessary admission subsequently to institutional care. Similarly, developing recuperation and rehabilitation services will enable people to return to the community sooner and to remain in their own homes. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that that is common sense.
Those are also key themes in the forthcoming social services White Paper, giving the context within which services such as residential care must be seen and developed. We should be aiming to maximise independence rather than supporting dependency. We need a new emphasis on rehabilitation, recuperation and prevention services. Crucially, the White Paper programme is underpinned by the personal social services settlement—an additional £2.8 billion over three years secured in the comprehensive spending review.
Last winter, an additional £269 million was allocated for tackling winter pressures. While that money was non-recurrent, it was not just elastoplast for the winter. It provided an opportunity for longer-term improvements in services, relationships and systems. Among the priorities applied in allocating the funds were plans that would reduce delays in discharging patients and reduce the need for people to be admitted to hospital in the first place, for example by strengthening primary, community and social services.
Winter pressures were well managed by social services departments, health authorities, trusts and other agencies working in partnership. Cambridge and Huntingdon health authority received £1.4 million of the £15.174 million available to the Anglia and Oxford region. Nearly £1 million of that went to social services to enable the discharge of delayed patients at Addenbrooke's, Hinchingbrooke and Lifespan into nursing and residential homes.
Let us look ahead to the coming winter. Last week, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that we would find a further £250 million to help the national health service and social services to cope with 1998–99 winter pressures. The English share of that total is £209 million. On Monday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State

for Health announced how the first £159 million would be allocated. That will build on the success of our measures last winter by again tackling discharge and unnecessary admissions and by strengthening community-based services. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join me and his fellow Cambridgeshire Members in welcoming the additional £14.67 million that the Cambridge and Huntingdon health authority will have at its disposal in the next year. That is a 4.1 per cent. real-terms increase. I am sure that the money will be used to address some of the concerns that he has raised.
Once again, health authorities will be encouraged to use section 28A to transfer resources for joint schemes to social service departments when appropriate. In some pressure spots, that will mean purchasing extra long-term placements in residential and nursing homes. We would also expect social services to be supported to invest in community-based rehabilitative and recuperative care.

Mr. Lansley: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. Will he clarify that the £14.7 million to which he refers is an increase in the overall allocation to Cambridge and Huntingdon health authority? Is he yet able to say what winter pressures money is available for the year ahead and whether there will be continuing support to follow up that money?

Mr. Hutton: The £14.7 million includes the additional allocation for winter pressures in the forthcoming period. The money has been treated together.
Decisions on the level of local authority expenditure are taken each year, following detailed discussions with the local authority associations. In setting the level of expenditure for each of the main services, the Government take account of anticipated pressures on those services. Resources are distributed on the basis of standard spending assessments.
Spending priorities vary from area to area and no one is better placed to assess those priorities than the authorities locally. Some 90 per cent. of resources for social services are allocated to the local authority on an unhypothecated basis. Authorities are free to choose how best to allocate the money internally.
Cambridgeshire's standard spending assessment per head is below the national average, but the hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that the SSA reflects the relative need for social services in an area, which research has shown to be linked to the extent of social deprivation. Cambridgeshire is a less deprived area overall, so we might expect it to have less social need than the average authority. For example, in 1996, around 15 per cent. of people over 60 in Cambridgeshire were on income support, compared with more than 40 per cent. in Tower Hamlets and Hackney. The hon. Gentleman also referred to the change made last year in distributing the elderly residential SSA for Cambridgeshire, mentioning a figure of £1.4 million. That allocation was made after extensive independent work by the University of Kent on the characteristics of people requiring local authority assistance. There is no question of Cambridgeshire being unfairly treated in the allocation or victimised by the change in the method of distributing resources.
We intend to ensure that social service budgets are given the right priority among the many services receiving Government support. We recently announced that funding for social services would rise by more than 3 per cent. above inflation for each of the next three years.


The hon. Gentleman referred to the closure of the Meadowcroft home in Trumpington. I am sure that he appreciates that decisions about the commercial viability of individual homes are not matters for Ministers in the Department of Health. When residents have to move because of the closure of a home, I expect local authorities and health authorities to work together to ensure that the arrangements are appropriate and are handled sensitively. I understand how traumatic it can be for frail, elderly and vulnerable people, such as the hon. Gentleman's constituents, who have to move from residential care or a nursing home that has become their true home. We are not in a position to prevent the closure of an independent home if the home owner or the organisation running it considers it to be no longer viable. I repeat the message that we have sent to many organisations in this field—we expect local authorities and health authorities to work sensitively to manage the movement of those very frail and vulnerable people.
In conclusion, I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire for giving the House an opportunity to discuss some very important issues. In the longer term, we are aware of the need to develop a fair and sustainable method of funding long-term residential care, and I look forward to future opportunities to debate those issues more fully in the House.

Planning Applications (Waverley)

Mr. Kevin Barron: I am pleased to have this Adjournment debate on an issue that some would say is, in a sense, history—a planning application in my constituency, one or two aspects of which were unique. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is familiar with the case.
The planning application was for an opencast coal site where work was completed in 1982—a long time ago—and which was reclaimed in 1994 for commercial development. Some 65 out of 90 acres have been reclaimed. The planning application was to use the first 20 acres of the site. I should add that next to the site is the Orgreave opencast coal mine, where there is a massive scheme—one of the biggest in Europe—to clean up industrial dereliction. When that work is finished, some 800 acres of land will be available for use—all of it ex-industrial or brown-field site land.
The local authority, Rotherham borough council, is working up a master plan for the whole site which may include business and industrial use, leisure, housing, a shopping centre, schools and open space. In effect, we are looking at producing a new community on the site.
The application was made by an American company, AMC, which, in a letter to the Government's regional office in January 1997, said:
AMC Europe is the subsidiary of AMC Entertainment Inc.. one of the largest cinema circuits in the USA, and we are considering a redeployment in the UK, where AMC pioneered the Multiplex complex in the mid eighties, thus initiating a spectacular growth of the cinema attendance (from 45 million tickets sold in 1985 to close to 130 million in 1996.) Our target within the next decade is to build approximately 10 4–6,000 seat–20–30 screen multiplexes integrated in full entertainment centres around the major metropolitan areas of the UK.
It is clear that the implications go far wider than the application for the site in my constituency.
The letter continued:
Our objective in Waverley is, by using the synergy between the cinema and the other restaurant and leisure activities planned on site, to generate a sufficient critical mass to turn the site into a true leisure destination, thus attracting customers from a much larger catchment area than a traditional multiplex".
The plans that I saw proposed a catchment area from West Yorkshire to the middle of Nottinghamshire. The letter continued:
The Waverley Park site is well adapted to the development of our concept, due to the large catchment area, the excellent access and relatively few competing leisure schemes.
The letter said that the company had built a similar project in Portugal in December 1996, and that there was a clear demand for multiplexes.
The leisure industry report for 1998 says that there are approximately 110 multiplexes in this country, which begs the question: how many more can the UK take before saturation point is reached? This is all relevant to the Secretary of State's decision on the project. Operators' opinions on how many more multiplexes the country could take differ, but the average seems to be between 80 and 100. The development plans of the UK's established multiplex operators clearly reflect the current strength. This is a big area for growth in the British economy.


AMC's application was submitted in 1996 and went on its journey through the Government regional office, which I visited in September 1996. I had been approached by the developers, and I was interested in the cultural change in activity in my constituency which, as hon. Members will know, has suffered from the rundown of its basic industries for more than a decade. To my knowledge, it was the only proposal for the site, and I was excited about it.
As ever with planning applications that are called in by the Government, the decision took a long time. I understand that, even after the general election, there were several meetings in the DTI about whether to call in the application for a public inquiry. Ministers asked for more information, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary asked for details in relation to planning policy guidance note 6—the alternative site test—and PPG13, concerning public transport.
That information was sent in by the planning authority in June this year, yet it took until September before the final decision to have a public inquiry was made by the Secretary of State—something that I did not want and had lobbied against. The decision was communicated to the developers by letter on 25 September. The time scale about which we are talking is from July 1996 until 25 September, when the decision was taken. That is a long time to ask someone who is preparing to invest millions of pounds into a project to wait.
The criteria laid down by the public inquiry were known by the Department. The Department had asked about PPG6 and PPG13 only a few months before, and had been given a comprehensive report about the tests by the planning authority. The Department also asked about accessibility by a choice of means of transport and the likely effects on travel patterns and car use; the likely impact on the vitality and viability of existing town centres; whether there was a clearly defined need which could not be accommodated in or on the edge of existing centres, and particularly whether smaller-scale developments could be located in town centre or edge-of-centre sites; and whether there has been a proper sequential approach to site selection.
At the pre-inquiry meeting in March, my constituency office was represented by Sheena Woolley —who has worked for me for many years—and she took evidence, in shorthand, of what was said by the different parties who were called by the planning inspector. It became clear at that stage that the South Yorkshire passenger transport executive was not prepared to give evidence because
they fell between two groups.
I assume that that meant that they fell between one of the principal objectors, Sheffield city council, and Rotherham borough council, the planning authority which wanted the scheme to go ahead. Both authorities sit on the South Yorkshire passenger transport executive.
I would like to mention someone else who was at that meeting and who had done a lot of work in relation to the project—Rotherham borough councillor, Reg Littleboy, who had collected a lot of signatures in a petition from the local community to support the application. Reg gave evidence at the inquiry.
I attended the public inquiry twice during the four days that it sat. I gave evidence on the fourth day, and what I witnessed—and what was reported in the local press—was hardly about the wider issues in relation to the site.

It was more like a report of a bad neighbour dispute; in my 15 years in the House, I have always tried to avoid such disputes as they are so difficult to solve. Unfortunately, that was how it panned out in the media and during some of the discussions. I am pleased to say that the neighbours are now having constructive discussions about co-existence with one another, and I welcome the co-operation between the two planning authorities.
The inspector's report was clear—he rejected the application. Two issues were involved. The first was public transport and, on that, he seemed to look no further than the end of his nose. The single planning application was for a 20-acre site, but the development would eventually cover 800 acres. Planning law is restrictive in that one cannot look at the wider picture when deciding on individual schemes. Perhaps we should look into that. The inspector's overall conclusion was that
the proposed leisure park would be primarily reliant upon the private car",
and I accept that. That is the reality for out-of-town developments, and I do not hide from it. However, the inspector gave no weight to the benefits of the park-and-ride scheme that had been proposed for the site. It is a cart-and-horse situation: do we get transport by planning for it, or by demand? I believe that it is demand led, and I am sure that public transport on the site will be more than adequate when that site is fully developed.
I am well aware of what can happen with out-of-town developments. The Meadowhall retail complex is only three miles from the site. It was built in the 1980s without a public inquiry and with no objection from the planning authority, and it is still being developed. Meadowhall is an enormously popular place for people to visit and spend their money. The slogan in advertisements on regional television states that it has parking spaces for 12,000 cars. That is what sells it.
At present, the private car is the overwhelming choice of transport for the individual. We cannot use the planning process to force people on to public transport. One can lay down stipulations to improve access and a line has to be taken, but refusing planning permission is not the way to do it. We should consider other ways, and making the buses more affordable would be a good start. We must recognise that they now run for profit. Public transport is not what it was a decade ago. In my constituency, buses have stopped running to certain villages in rural areas because such services are not profitable. It is not the public service that it used to be. I do not know how the Government will square that, but it has to be done.
The South Yorkshire passenger transport executive should have given evidence on the public transport aspects. It decided not to do so and I believe that it was got at—by whom I am not sure. Its written representation to the public inquiry is recorded in paragraph 143 of the inspector's report, which states:
The South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive… was opposed in principle to the out of centre location of the proposal, which was contrary to the transport policies in the South Yorkshire Joint Transport Package Bid and to Government planning guidelines.
That view contrasts with a letter that the PTE sent to interested parties dated 10 July 1997, which stated:
I can confirm that the Transport Executive is now satisfied that your development proposals can be adequately served by public transport.


We note that in addition to the provision of public transport infrastructure, you have indicated your willingness to support late evening bus services and are prepared to enter into agreements for the allocation of certain parking spaces for park and ride use.
The passenger transport executive was not hiding its head in the sand and wanted to use the site to improve transport where it could.
After I gave evidence at the public inquiry and questioned why the SYPTE had not done so, I received a letter from the executive, dated 13 May 1998, which stated:
I had some feedback from my officers who were present at the inquiry regarding your own comments and also those relating to the PTE's initial objection …I am quite happy to meet with you to discuss your concerns".
I was unhappy at the situation and did not take up the offer, but wrote to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport to tell him of my concern regarding the passenger transport executive's lack of action on the matter and the fact that it was not willing to give evidence about public transport. I received a reply from my right hon. Friend saying that, although he could appreciate my concern
SYPTE chose not to give public evidence at the Public Inquiry. However, I have to say there is no compulsion on third parties to do so and that is not a matter in which I could intervene.
He suggested that I should pursue my concerns with the PTE.
This is not a matter for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary today, but it is scandalous that a publicly funded quango, which is what the SYPTE is, was not prepared to give evidence at a public inquiry. Taxpayers pay for that organisation to have opinions on public transport. It is atrocious that contradictory messages have resulted because it did not take the stand to give evidence at the inquiry. Although this debate is retrospective, I should point out that the organisation has done itself a disservice by not doing so.
The other issue in the report is the sequential test on site selection. In paragraph 191, the inspector states:
In applying the sequential test, it was agreed that there is no single site in or on the edge of either Sheffield city centre or Rotherham town centre which could accommodate either the whole leisure park or the 24 screen cinema alone… However, to my mind the sequential test could always be thwarted if that was the correct basis for the assessment, by proposing development of such a large scale that it could rarely, if ever, be housed in or on the edge of a centre.
I must agree with the inspector there. Developers could easily exploit the situation, saying that they needed to use a green-field site–20 acres of countryside—because they could not find comparable acreage in a town or city centre.
The inspector goes on to say:
To satisfy the sequential test, I consider it to be necessary to examine whether the individual elements of the proposal could be provided for on city centre or town centre or edge of centre sites. That should include consideration of whether smaller cinemas could be accommodated on such sites.
The following paragraph states:
Applying the sequential test on that basis, a need for 24 further cinema screens could be accommodated in Sheffield city centre"—
pretty conclusive, I guess. The inspector continues:
The Castlegate and Heart of the City redevelopment sites have the capability to provide that number of screens in 2 separate cinemas …Neither site is likely to be available to the applicants in this case, as other developers are involved.

The inspector states that the development should be in the city centre, but that the developers can forget it because they will not be able to build there.
Paragraph 197 of the report states:
I have concluded that there is no clearly defined need for the development proposed which could not be accommodated in or on the edge of existing centres, provided that flexibility is applied to the form of the development, both in terms of the size of the cinema, and of the willingness to accept that the individual elements of the scheme could be built on separate sites.
That reads like a page from the five-year plan of some centrally controlled state.
We must recognise that leisure is the fastest growing industry in the United Kingdom. It is also the biggest. It is bigger than the whole of manufacturing industry and it creates more jobs than any other sector—one in five new jobs created in the next 10 years will be in leisure and hospitality.
If coalfield areas, such as the one that I represent, are to be regenerated, they will need a share of that jobs market. However, they will not get a share if the town and city test is the only criterion applied. Coal mining jobs were lost not in towns and city centres but in areas such as Rother Valley and the constituencies represented by my hon. Friends the Members for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) and for Wentworth (Mr. Healey), who are in the Chamber.
At the Labour party conference in Blackpool in October, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said:
You know the Tories ripped the heart out of the pit communities. We are determined to put the heart back into them, offering jobs and hope, instead of despair and the dole.
I never thought that I would say this, but my right hon. Friend's words rang hollow for me and my constituents, who, a few days before, had lost a £30 million inward investment package that would have created 570 jobs.
The more I consider this issue, the more concerned I am about the Government's approach to out-of-town development. That concern is shared by others. The Estates Gazette said in October that the Government had commissioned a consultant's report on the economic consequences of planning for the business sector and cited some negative comments about planning and PPG6. Mr. Huw Williams, the development policy manager for Sainsbury, said:
people had broadly understood the agenda and understood what the sequential approach was about, but now we're beginning to see new considerations being brought into play…It's as if someone had gone back to PPG6 and highlighted new bits such as car parking and the exact relationship between edge-of-centre and town centre.
On 7 November, the paper carried an article headed "PPG6 upset in High Court". It stated that food store developers no longer had to prove need to obtain planning permission. It cited a partner at the firm Healey and Baker, who said that there had been a move over the past year or two to demand that developers demonstrated need. The article continued:
This watershed decision will reassure developers that they don't have to. It should give the government cause to clarify its policy and iron out inconsistencies in the way PPG6 has been interpreted.
I recognise that some of those voices are laced with vested interest. Some people may say that I have a vested interest, too, but my interest is the good of my


constituency. My concern is that proposals to begin the regeneration of a coalfield area are blocked by unclear planning guidelines. I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is reviewing planning matters, but how long is that process likely to take? I have been talking about one planning application for the site, but I hope that, now that that application has been blocked, there will be many more.
Will my hon. Friend also consider the difficult and perhaps unique problems of the coalfield areas and fully recognise the wider social and economic problems there, some of which can be addressed by the flexible and sensitive application of the planning guidelines? I know that, next month, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will make an announcement on the coalfields task force, but it is important that any review should recognise the great difficulties that coalfield areas face.
I recognise and support the Government's commitment to the regeneration of our cities and towns. I know that, with the local planning authority, they are doing a good job in transforming Rotherham town centre. However, if we are serious about the plight of former coalfield areas, a careful balance must be struck, so that the problems caused by the rundown of coal mining can be tackled.
I realise that I have not left my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary much time in which to respond—he may be grateful for that, as he will not have to comment on everything that I have said—but I should be grateful for an assurance that reviews will recognise where the markets are, and not focus solely on the needs of towns and city centres.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) on his success in securing this debate. He has referred specifically to the refusal of planning permission for a large leisure development at the former opencast site in Rotherham district at Waverley near Sheffield. I know that he has taken a close interest in the matter and that he has been both assiduous and forceful in pressing the case for development, which he believed would bring substantial benefits to his constituents.
As my hon. Friend said, the case was decided, following an exhaustive public inquiry, by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, in his capacity as Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The inquiry inspector, having carefully considered all the material considerations in the case, concluded that the proposed development was in fundamental conflict with Government policy as set out in PPG6 and PPG 13. My right hon. Friend concurred with the inspector's clear recommendation and refused consent accordingly.
All planning decisions are taken in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations—including national land use planning policies and policies on town centres, retail and leisure development and transport—suggest otherwise. The Government have a responsibility to defend town centres against large out-of-centre shopping and leisure developments that are likely to harm the vitality and viability of town centres. My hon. Friend will be aware that the recent Environment

Select Committee report on shopping centres recommended that Ministers took a tough approach on applications for large leisure developments, so that further damage to town centres could be avoided. In their response, the Government stated their commitment to ensuring that the approach in PPG6 to retail development is applied as firmly to leisure developments.
The criteria for assessing large out-of-centre leisure developments, such as that proposed for the Waverley site, include the likely harm to the strategy in the development plan, the impact on the vitality and viability of nearby town centres, accessibility by a choice of means of transport and overall travel patterns. There should also be a flexibly applied sequential approach to site selection, so that out-of-centre locations are considered only when the development cannot be accommodated in town centre or edge-of-centre locations.
All planning applications for major leisure developments must be considered against those criteria. Moreover, PPG6 states that town and district centres should be the preferred locations for developments that attract many trips and PPG13 states that, by planning land use and transport so that people can carry out their everyday activities with less need to travel, local planning authorities can reduce reliance on the car and contribute to reaching the environmental goals that are set out in the Government's sustainable development strategy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley has forcefully expressed his disappointment about the Waverley decision. However, he would agree, I am sure, that it would be wrong to suggest that nothing is being done to support and regenerate the coalfield communities. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has given a high priority to action to assist those communities. The South Yorkshire coalfield areas have benefited from a wide range of regeneration activities, which have been undertaken with help, for example, from English Partnerships and the single regeneration budget.
My right hon. Friend was instrumental in setting up the coalfields task force in October 1997, with a remit to pioneer options for revitalising the former coalfield communities that were affected by pit closure programmes. The task force's report "Making the Difference", which was published in June 1998, contained recommendations for regenerating coalfields communities and was warmly received. My right hon. Friend gave the Government's initial response to the report in July. He said:
The Coalfields Task Force's vision was to set up a framework which will empower communities to create their own new start. This Government is committed to do its part to make this vision a reality. I want to put a powerful framework in place to deliver a comprehensive programme of regeneration for our coalfields communities.
My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will launch the Government's action plan for the coalfields, and a detailed response to the task force report, at a second coalfields conference on 1 December at Peterlee leisure centre in County Durham. I understand my hon. Friend's disappointment at the Waverley decision, but I hope that he will agree that the Government are taking many initiatives to respond to the needs of the coalfield communities.


The process of reviewing and modernising planning is under way, and revisions to various planning policy guidelines will be issued over a period. There is a strong focus on speeding up the planning process, and I agree that we need to ensure that there is not undue delay in considering applications.
I will relay to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport my hon. Friend's comments about the South Yorkshire passenger transport executive not giving evidence.

Road Haulage (Taxation)

Mr. Owen Paterson: I thank your office, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the two Departments involved, for co-operating on the change of title for this debate so that a Treasury Minister could respond to it.
We have a strategic industry that is in real crisis: 95 per cent. of all freight is moved by road—in a rural area such as my constituency, the figure is as high as 97 per cent.—and there is no real alternative for the foreseeable future. The most optimistic estimates suggest that, even if the huge projected investment in rail freight for the next 10 years were to materialise, that would only double the rail share, from 5 to 11 per cent. Road would continue to expand and would probably hold steady at about 90 per cent. of freight transport.
Our whole economy depends on maintaining an efficient road haulage industry. No business —or family—does not use goods that were moved at some stage by road. There is not an hon. Member here today who is not wearing clothing or who has not eaten food in the Tea Room that was carried at some stage by a diesel-powered vehicle. The average Sainsbury store has 23,000 items, all carried by road.
There are 420,000 commercial vehicles of more than 3.5 tonnes in the United Kingdom and they move more than 1.6 billion tonnes of goods, yet the future of the 65,000 road haulage businesses is in jeopardy. By 2002, the current crisis may have caused 26,000 job losses, and a loss to gross domestic product of £1.5 billion and to the Treasury of £1 billion; and the Government are entirely to blame. One of the few remaining areas of taxation over which each nation state in the European Union has retained 100 per cent. of its decision-making powers is the setting of fuel and vehicle excise duty.
The Government are using their power in a bizarre manner, actively putting a strategic industry at a massive disadvantage. The fuel duty escalator was introduced in 1993, in response to the Rio commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It was originally set at the retail price index plus 3 per cent., but the Labour Government increased it to RPI plus 6 per cent. in 1997, adding a further gratuitous 1p per litre on diesel in the 1998 Budget.
The House of Commons Library calculates that Labour has added £9 billion of extra fuel duties during this Parliament. The escalator on diesel and petrol this year gave more to the Treasury than 1p on income tax would have done. By 2002, the policy will cost the haulage industry £5 billion a year.
Ninety-nine per cent. of lorries are diesel-fuelled, and fuel represents a minimum of 30 per cent. of the operating costs of running a lorry. According to the Library, 82 per cent. of the price of fuel in the United Kingdom is taxation. Each 38-tonne vehicle pays £22,000 a year in tax. There is a widening gap between the UK and our continental competitors. Excluding VAT, UK diesel costs about 56p a litre, of which duty is 44.99p; in France, it costs 35p a litre, of which duty is only 24.57p. The 21p a litre—or 95p a gallon—difference means that to fill a truck with two tanks, which takes 1,200 litres, costs £252 more in the UK than in France. The comparisons with Benelux and Germany are even worse.


My constituents are in desperate trouble. Dale Roberts, from Morda, wrote to me and said:
The 5.5p per litre increase on diesel is slowly but surely strangling the industry as there is no way in which we can claim this increase back. Our customers are in much the same situation as ourselves with an appalling cashflow problem. Unless something is done, and soon, the haulage industry of this country will be in a decline from which it will find it very hard to crawl back.
Mr. Jagger, from Pentre, who handles timber—notably, he took the timber down to St. George's hall for the restoration of Windsor castle—wrote to me in July. He said:
At this present and proposed taxation, it is going to become impossible to continue to operate to an acceptable standard. Unless the Government comes to its senses many good hauliers will go to the wall with many people losing their jobs.
There is even worse—possibly much worse—to come. Vehicle excise duty on a 38-tonne truck costs £3,210 in the UK; only £459 in France; and a mere £296 in Spain. A typical international haulier in the UK, running 50 trucks, was £150,000 worse off than his Spanish competitor before he even got out of bed on 1 January this year; yet the Chancellor has already said that he has plans to make new heavier lorries subject to even higher rates, to discourage their use.
Andrew Wishart, in Kirkcaldy, has 16 trucks and has told me that, if the four-by-two-axle VED goes up to the rumoured level of £7,000 to £9,000, he will move abroad. He transports car parts and telecommunications parts to eastern and southern Europe, so he drives through Belgium, and he is already taking steps to set up a base and an office in Belgium.

Mr. John Hayes: My hon. Friend is understating the case, as all this is happening in the context of an agricultural economy in decline. Many haulage firms are based in rural areas such as my constituency and his, and they are already facing other problems. The burden of extra duty comes on top of an agricultural and rural crisis.

Mr. Paterson: As always, my hon. Friend is spot on. I was about to cite the case of a haulier who transports lambs from Carlisle to Newtown and now has to pay an extra £60 for each load. That is an extra burden on the sheep industry, which is in real crisis, as my hon. Friend and I are well aware.
Eddie Stobart's name will be familiar to most hon. Members from his 800 very smart red and green lorries. He employs about 2,500 people. If he moved to France today, he would save £2.2 million on VED alone. If the proposed hike on heavier vehicles goes through, it will be even worse. Yesterday, he said to me on the telephone, "Unless the Government sees sense on fuel and VED, I will have actively to consider cheaper alternatives to running my business based in the UK."
That is a major worry for me, because distribution is a major business in North Shropshire. It is run by the entrepreneurs whom the Government lecture us that we should have: the people who have built up businesses from nothing. The Woodward family in Oswestry began importing sausages in the back of their car, and kept them

in their garage; in recent years, they have invested £15 million in a state-of-the-art distribution centre and they have 89 trucks.

Mr. Christopher Gill: May I instance another Shropshire business, owned by Mr. Owen of Lydbury North who tells me that, of a fuel bill last year of £28,500, £24,795—no less—was duty?

Mr. Paterson: As always, my hon. Friend has his feet on the ground and knows what is going on.
The increases cannot be passed on. Nigel Woodward told me that he
cannot get any increase from his customers.
The Penton family, down the road from the Woodwards, have invested £12 million. According to Andrew Penton, they
are seriously considering flagging out, and sthey have slowed their expansion plans here.
The only relief on VED is the £500 allowance offered by the Government to encourage vehicles to be fitted with particulate traps, enabling them to use low-sulphur diesel. That sounds a good idea, but the conversion kits alone cost £3,500; low-sulphur diesel is extremely hard to find; when one eventually finds it, it is more expensive than conventional diesel; and, unbelievably, it is 5 per cent. less efficient than ordinary diesel. Not surprisingly, I have yet to find a haulier who is tempted by the Government's kind offer.
For the time being, the Government are milking rewards from the policy, but the long-term consequences for Government revenue are serious. I talked last week to an international haulier based in Kettering who deals exclusively with Italy and Spain. He has not filled up one of his 20 trucks in the United Kingdom in the past 18 months. By 2002, more than £1 billion of tax revenue will be lost to the Exchequer from fuel being purchased abroad. Smuggling across the Irish border is rampant—it is estimated to cost between £ 100 million and £150 million. We do not know the exact figure, because the Government do not care. They are happy to lecture the workers of Rover on the need to be more efficient, but when my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) asked about the extent of cross-border smuggling, the Economic Secretary replied, in a written answer:
HM Customs and Excise have no estimates for the revenue lost to the Exchequer through these activities."—[Official Report, 22 October 1998; Vol. 317, c. 1201.]
One way in which the Government could raise revenue is through tolls. British trucks running through the Benelux countries and Germany pay £4.20 a day for a vignette and, as we know, autoroute tolls in France and Italy are even higher. A truck last week running from Calais to Mont Blanc paid £95 for the one-way trip. Vehicle excise duty is adjusted in those countries to allow for the tolls, but the House of Commons Library has told me that 600,000 foreign-registered goods vehicles left the UK for mainland Europe in 1997. The industry feels bitter that no charge is levied on such trucks, which can come here when they like. They can be any weight and put out any kind of pollution. The Government intend to penalise heavy trucks, but not if they come from Europe.
As a free trader, I welcomed the arrival of cabotage on 1 July, which enabled the free movement of goods within the European Union by any European Union haulier,


but that is no good if the game is rigged against the UK haulier. French trucks with a range of 1,200 to 1,300 miles can easily reach Shropshire and clock up 600 miles of profitable business before returning to Calais to fuel up and take advantage of cheaper VED under the more sensible regime of the French Government. My constituent, Martin Edge, said today:
We welcome competition, but it must be fair. Our current position is disastrous.
A further, sinister implication arises from information I learned from a haulier in Lincoln last week, who already has six vehicles registered in France. He said:
There is a significant difference in the quality of the annual MOT test. Here in the UK it is rigorous and it is right that it should be. By comparison French MOT test standards are lower across the board. The brake test is a complete joke.
A proud, successful industry has been brought to its knees because the Government believe that they have found a source of revenue that will not bite back. I have been in correspondence with the Financial Secretary since April. The replies have been as complacent and lacking in understanding and information as they have been late in arriving. My letter of 20 July, which enclosed a letter from Billy Griffiths, a major local employer, received a reply only on 24 September.
The Minister stated:
I am sorry for the delay in replying. This is due to parliamentary recess.
In a parliamentary recess, Ministers do not have tiresome Back Benchers such as myself calling them to Parliament to answer Adjournment debates. If a business were run so incompetently, it would have gone bust long ago. My requests to bring a delegation to meet the Minister have been constantly refused, but the presence at Westminster today of hundreds of truckers— who have come from Bury St. Edmunds, Shropshire, the south-west of England and many other places—testifies that they must win on the issue to survive. They must also win on behalf of every business in the land, because they are all made less competitive by the policy. Transport represents up to 10 per cent. of the price of many manufactured goods and 12 to 13 per cent. of retail distribution costs.
The whole economy is being damaged, and I shall give one example. Ten years ago, a site in Market Drayton was a green field. Today, it is a state-of-the-art plant making yoghurt for Mullers from 100 million litres of milk. Every one of those litres is taken there by a diesel-powered truck and every yoghurt pot is taken away by a diesel truck. That magnificent — 60 million investment is a tribute to the policies that Conservative Governments introduced and to the work force of Market Drayton. It is a real success story and the Minister can enjoy the product in the Tea Room afterwards. However, I talked to the managing director this morning and he said:
We are unable to pass on any of the increases in transport costs to our customers. Considering the huge investment, this is bitterly disappointing.
The intention of the policy is to improve air quality, but it will not do so. British hauliers will be forced to put off purchasing new, more efficient equipment and more work will be done by heavier, less-well-maintained and cared-for foreign trucks. The pollution will stay, but the polluter will not pay. New Labour claims to understand

business. If that were true, the Labour Benches would be full. New Labours talks about productivity and global competition, but it has the power to change this policy. It is stupid and is damaging a key strategic industry, not to mention the whole economy.
I would like the Minister to answer two simple questions. Will she let me bring a delegation from the industry to see her before the Budget? Will she agree today to freeze any further increases in VED and fuel duty?

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ms Patricia Hewitt): I understand the passion that the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) brings to the debate, but I regret the fact that he did not mention the environmental considerations that stand behind the policy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, he did."' He paid almost no attention to those considerations and he paid no attention to the range of policies, which I am about to outline for him, that are designed to help the road haulage industry achieve our objective and theirs—to promote a British haulage industry that is sustainable, efficient and effective, and that also meets our environmental and social objectives.
Contrary to the implication in the hon. Gentleman's remarks, the industry has responded favourably to the approach to sustainable distribution that we set out in our White Paper, "A New Deal for Transport". For example, the industry has welcomed the fact that 40-tonne, five-axle lorries will be allowed for domestic use as well as for international movements, as we are obliged to do under European Union legislation. Those vehicles are no larger than existing 38-tonne vehicles. The industry has also endorsed our intention to improve enforcement in the industry through improvements in the efficiency of the enforcement agencies. We will ensure, for instance, that we get modern information technology systems into those agencies, which will allow much better co-ordination and sharing of data.
We have also heard from the industry an endorsement of our intention to impound illegally operated vehicles used by cowboy operators. The industry has been constructive in helping us to formulate those proposals, which will help to ensure that hauliers in the UK operate in a competitive regime, which is fair and honest. In the White Paper, we also stated that we will improve the service offered by trunk roads, by improving network control and traffic management. By maintaining and managing the existing road network better, we will reduce delays and improve the efficiency of the industry. All of us have wasted precious time sitting on crowded roads and seen necessary distribution vehicles also stuck in those queues. We will also introduce legislation to allow local authorities to charge road users to help to reduce congestion. That will benefit the haulage industry, because reduced congestion will lead to improved delivery time, efficiency and profitability.
We have also stated our intention to support the industry in promoting best practice, through quality partnerships and the Road Haulage Association's "Well Driven" scheme, which I and, I am sure, many other hon. Members have noticed increasingly on our roads. We intend to promote an industry that will support the country's economic growth and, at the same time, meet environmental objectives.


We are committed to achieving the United Kingdom's share of the European Union target agreed at Kyoto to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 8 per cent. by 2008–12. All motorists need to make a contribution to achieving that target. It is estimated that the road fuel duty escalator, if continued at its current level from 1996 until 2002, will save between 2 million and 5 million tonnes of carbon annually by 2010.
The hon. Member for North Shropshire expressed with great force his concern, and that of his constituents and many in the industry, about diesel price increases and changes to vehicle excise duty. Of course we know that increased fuel duties and VED impact on the costs facing the road transport industry and hauliers, but we believe that the cost of using lorries must fully reflect the cost that they impose, including environmental costs. I am surprised that Conservative Members, who are free traders and free marketers who should understand the need to incorporate environmental costs into accurate pricing, do not apply it to this industry.

Mr. John Townend: Will the Minister deal with the problem at the core of the debate? How do the Government intend to tackle the problem of the level playing field? How are we going to stop British hauliers moving to France or Belgium? What do all the things that she says that she has done for the industry amount to in cash terms, compared with the extra burden so eloquently described by my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson)?

Ms Hewitt: Happily, I was just coming to that point.
We are conscious of the impact of higher fuel taxation and VED on competitiveness and profitability, but it needs to be put into a wider context. The United Kingdom has lower corporation taxes, lower employment taxes and lower social costs than other European Union countries, especially with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's recent Budget measures to assist small businesses. The overall tax burden is lower in the United Kingdom than in our major EU competitors and lower than the averages for the EU and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Townend) may not want to listen to the Minister but I do, so I must be able to hear her.

Ms Hewitt: Not only is the overall burden of taxation lower on British businesses— including the road haulage industry—than on European businesses, but, looking at business as a whole, transport is a relatively small part of total business costs.

Mr. Gill: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Hewitt: No. I have already given way and would like to make some progress. Tax measures that we have recently introduced, or will introduce, to help road hauliers include the freezing of the standard VED rates for lorries. That means that lorry drivers are paying less VED in real terms than they were in 1990, and that partly offsets the impact of higher fuel duty and should help to maintain the competitive position of our road hauliers. A reduction of up to £500 in VED for low-emission

lorries and buses will be introduced at the end of this year. There is also the freeze in duty on road fuel gases and the widened differential that we will maintain and, I hope, increase, in favour of ultra-low-sulphur diesel.
There were broader measures in the Budget that will benefit business and road hauliers: the 1 per cent. cut in the main rate of corporation tax; the 1 per cent. cut in the small companies rate of corporation tax, which next April will be down to 20 per cent; the introduction of quarterly payments for large companies, replacing advance corporation tax; the extension of enhanced temporary first year capital allowances; and the introduction of the taper to reduce the capital gains tax on assets held for longer periods, which is equivalent to a higher tax rate of 10 per cent. after 10 years on business assets.

Mr. Paterson: The Minister is getting on to the second page of the letters that I had from the Financial Secretary. We have been through all this; it is irrelevant to the items that I raised. She mentioned the environment, but why have not other European countries imposed a fuel escalator if it is such a good idea? They signed up to Kyoto. She talks about the contribution of the industry to the environment, but £30 billion is taken from road users while only £2 billion is spent on roads.

Ms Hewitt: The point of environmental taxation is to internalise the external costs imposed, in this case by road users, in the prices that they are charged, not necessarily to return the product of that revenue directly to them. Several EU member states, including the new German Government, are considering carefully proposals for carbon tax and energy tax. There are proposals at European level for an energy tax, which we will consider carefully.
Hon. Members raised the matter of competition from abroad. Despite what has been said, there is little evidence of foreign hauliers undercutting domestic hauliers for business in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Paterson: The Gallery is laughing.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the Gallery twice, which is outwith the rules of the House. He should not do it.

Ms Hewitt: The fact is that less than 0.04 per cent. UK road miles are done by foreign hauliers. The long-term outlook for the industry in this country suggests that lorry traffic is expected to grow by more than 60 per cent. in the next 20 years, an enormous growth in that sector of the economy. That makes it imperative that the Government ensure, by effective use of taxation, that the lorries on the road are the most fuel efficient and environmentally friendly available.
Under EU legislation—I think that the hon. Member for North Shropshire welcomed this—hauliers are free to set up business anywhere in the European Union. That is a commercial decision for the businesses involved. Let me remind him that many other factors are involved besides the prospect of cheaper vehicle licence or fuel tax:


the setting up costs; the burden of obtaining an operator's licence; higher drivers' wages; considerably higher social costs; higher corporation tax rates—and so on. Setting up a business on the continent has all those obvious costs. When all taxation is taken into account, the burden on business in the United Kingdom is lower than in other European Union states. Any British haulier who decided to set up in France or Belgium might find that road fuel taxes went down, but would certainly find that his social costs and wages bill went up. It is not surprising, when one considers the overall burden on business, that there have also been reports in the trade press of French hauliers registering their businesses in the United Kingdom to take advantage of lower business costs and the opportunities to grow their businesses.
The hon. Member for North Shropshire suggested that environmental taxes are simply an excuse for revenue raising. That is not the case. We are developing environmental taxes in line with the statement of intent on environmental taxation and with a vital principle both of market economics and of environmental concerns: prices should reflect true costs so that the polluter pays. Fuel duty increases are important to encourage further improvements in fuel efficiency and reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. Our spending is directed towards the people's priorities of education and health, from which everyone benefits, but also to increased spending on rural transport, which, as I hope that he agrees, will be of particular benefit to rural communities.
The hon. Member for North Shropshire raised specific questions about ultra-low-sulphur diesel. The early signs are that supermarkets will be able to sell ordinary and ultra-low-sulphur diesel at the same price, so UK refiners should be able to compete. In any case, we envisage altering the duty differential further in favour of ULSD. We believe that increased duty differential will further encourage the manufacture and use of the fuel. We need to look many years ahead, because ULSD offers substantial benefits to the quality of urban areas by reducing the amount of nitrogen oxide, black smoke and particulates produced during combustion. I know from my constituents how much concern there is not only about global warming, but about local air quality, because local pollution is one of the causes of the disturbing increase in asthma among children. I hope that all hon. Members would wish to take account of that.
The hon. Member for North Shropshire referred with concern to his correspondence with my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary—

It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ALLIANCE AND LEICESTER PLC (GROUP REORGANISATION) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Tuesday 17 November.

ALLIANCE & LEICESTER PLC (GROUP REORGANISATION) BILL [Lords]

Ordered,
That the promoters of the Alliance & Leicester plc (Group Reorganisation) Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered,
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;

Ordered,
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and shall be ordered to be read a second time;

Ordered,
That the Petition against the Bill presented in the present Session which stands referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;

Ordered,
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;

Ordered,
That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;

Ordered,
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.— [The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Bangladesh

Mr. David Borrow: What assistance her Department has provided to the people of Bangladesh to cope with the damage caused by the recent floods. [57800]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): We are providing £ 22 million to assist with relief and rehabilitation to help Bangladesh recover from the floods. One million pounds was given very quickly to non-governmental organisations to help them to provide food, water, medicine and shelter for the most needy. Eleven million pounds is being used to provide food grains through the World Food Programme to help fill the gap in food supply over the coming months that will result from heavy losses of the monsoon rice crop. The remaining £10 million is being allocated to agricultural rehabilitation and restoration of livelihoods and infrastructure.

Mr. Borrow: I am sure that my right hon. Friend's announcement will be welcomed by the people of Bangladesh. On 29 November, I shall attend a fundraising event organised by the Bangladeshi community at the Koh-i-noor restaurant in Hutton in my constituency. Will my right hon. Friend join me in praising the efforts of the Bangladeshi community in this country to raise funds to assist Bangladesh? That deserves real praise. Given that the difficulties in Bangladesh have arisen from natural disasters, which are always difficult to anticipate, and in view of the recent natural disasters that have struck central America, are there lessons for other parts of the world to be learnt from the way in which the Bangladeshi Government have handled their country's problems?

Clare Short: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in praising the people of the Bangladeshi community in Britain for their fundraising efforts throughout the country. As to the second part of his question, let me say that the way in which Bangladesh has coped with the floods is a model for the world of disaster-preparedness and self-reliance. Not only the Government, but the people of Bangladesh, have coped stunningly well. The contrast between Bangladesh and central America in loss of life resulting from comparable natural disasters shows the advantages of being prepared for disaster, and central America needs to get its systems in place. More than 60 per cent. of Bangladesh was devastated by the floods, and food crops and homes were lost. Bangladesh needs continuing help in order to reconstruct and go forward, so all the money raised by local groups in Britain will be extremely valuable.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: In view of the Government's welcome response to debt relief for Nicaragua and Honduras, does the Secretary of State intend to set a precedent for the faster relief of debt for

all poor countries that have suffered natural disasters, which category must include Bangladesh since the floods there? Is she not concerned that the media hype about debt relief in central America might make people forget that the help that is most needed is money now for food, medicines and shelter?

Clare Short: I am grateful to the hon. Lady because that was my very point. In the immediate face of a disaster, when people are pulled out of the mud and their lives are saved, the great risks are cholera and hunger, and debt relief cannot cope with those. Debt relief is important for reconstruction, but the immediate task is to provide food and stop the spread of cholera. I have just read a UN report and I am pleased to say that we are making progress on that.
In the case of Bangladesh, the hon. Lady's point is well made. If the groups that campaign on debt pretend that debt relief is all that is needed to deal with catastrophes, Bangladesh will get nothing, which is inequitable. We must give appropriate support to poor countries that need it.
The third part of the hon. Lady's question was about whether we are trying to get flexibility for all highly indebted post-catastrophe countries. The answer is yes. I have spoken to Jim Wolfensohn and read the report of initial thinking in the World bank and the International Monetary Fund, and much effort is being made to try to achieve that flexibility.

Ms Oona King: I, too, am incredibly concerned about Bangladesh. Does my right hon. Friend's previous answer mean that it will be possible for Bangladesh to become eligible under the heavily indebted poor countries initiative so that the long-term effects of the devastation wrought by the floods can be resolved?

Clare Short: No. Bangladesh cannot qualify for HIPC because, fortunately, it is not a heavily indebted poor country. That is one burden that it does not have. It is not a good thing to be a heavily indebted poor country because it is difficult to get inward investment or borrowing for sensible projects. Bangladesh is a very poor country and has great need of support and help, and we are committed to continuing that. The World bank can provide fast-disbursing loans for emergencies, which we must ensure are well spent. Such work is going on.

Conflict Prevention

Mr. Steve McCabe: What steps her Department is taking to support conflict prevention and post—conflict reconstruction. [57801]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): We aim to prevent conflict through long-term development programmes that bring benefits to all. We are also pursuing targeted strategies of conflict reduction such as improving the international machinery for dispute resolution and conflict prevention, combating small arms proliferation and other measures to limit the means of waging war.
In post-conflict countries—such as Rwanda, Liberia and, increasingly, we hope, other countries in Africa—we seek to promote sustainable peace through development


and demobilisation of troops, which includes their giving up their guns and getting a chance to work, and, where appropriate, security sector reform. We are also pressing the International Monetary Fund and the World bank more rapidly to bring post-conflict countries into the heavily indebted poor countries initiative.

Mr. McCabe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in post-conflict reconstruction, we should not offer aid or assistance to military regimes, wherever they may be, unless they give a clear commitment to democracy, economic reform and reform of their security services?

Clare Short: An interesting World bank report on that subject was published today. In general, the Government's policy is to set up our major programmes with Governments who are committed to poverty reduction. Progress in development is made when we back Governments who have their own reform programmes. People who are badly governed and living under dictatorial regimes are often some of the most oppressed and poorest in the world, and we do not turn our back on them. We can provide help by using non-governmental organisations and trying to build up civil society so that people can demand reform.
Long-term development requires a Government committed to development. Military regimes that oppress are not so committed. We are increasingly trying to help with demobilisation and security sector reform so that armies are responsible to the civil power and there are fewer chances of coups and destabilisation.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Has a World bank trust fund been established to give quickly disbursing grant funds to post-conflict countries and countries that have experienced a terrible natural disaster, such as Nicaragua and Honduras? Will the money be used to service outstanding international debt and will the £10 million that has been announced for Nicaragua and Honduras come from the Treasury reserve or the Department for International Development reserve?

Clare Short: We do not need a World bank trust fund for quickly disbursing disaster relief. The World bank has reorganised its resources in the region and made $200 million available in very quick disbursing loans to deal with the emergency. It does not need a trust fund; that can be done within the bank's existing organisation.
The purpose of the trust fund is to deal with debt. We would prefer all the creditors to agree to suspend repayments, but it is extremely unusual to obtain such agreement from the international financial institutions. Most of the debt is to the Inter-American Development bank. Failing such an agreement, the trust fund will help to pay off the costs of the debt while the countries concerned get reorganised. We have proffered money for that and Norway has agreed to join us. The World bank is examining that and other methods to ensure immediate relief on the payments.

Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Among the areas in need of post-conflict reconstruction are the areas controlled by the Palestine National Authority and the areas likely to be transferred to it under the Wye agreement. I know that the Under-Secretary has recently visited the region. Is the Department actively

considering further action to help to construct a functioning economy and civil society in the Palestinian areas?

Clare Short: My hon. Friend is right. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has just come back from a visit to the west bank and Gaza. I am sure that my hon. Friend shares our view that the slow pace in the peace process is disappointing, and that the growth of poverty and economic decline for the Palestinian people, when they are not allowed out to work in Israel, is extremely worrying. We are doing all that we can to strengthen the United Nations Relief and Works Agency and to help the Palestine National Authority to put in place systems that improve governance. We hope that matters will improve.
I am pleased to tell the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) that the extra money came from the Treasury; otherwise; poor people would be paying off the debt of other people.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the steps that the Department is taking to help in post-conflict situations. Has the Department any role in giving guidance to individuals who seek to play their own part in that, and who may often be misled? Money that is given to help people in a crisis may not reach its intended destination. I have in mind an issue that arose recently in connection with Iran Aid.

Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that one of the terrible features of crises, internationally or at home, is that there are often people who raise money and then misuse it—they appeal to the generosity of others and spend the money improperly. We do not have a formal system to deal with that, but the disaster emergency committee in Britain groups together charities that are making appeals. It has now agreed that only NGOs working in the relevant country will receive the fruits of that appeal. That means that money should be safe, and I suggest that people give money through those organisations.
I cannot reply with authority to the hon. Gentleman's point about Iran Aid, as I am not familiar with the matter. If he will drop me a line, I shall look into it and get back to him.

Trade Negotiations

Ms Tess Kingham: What steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to assist the Governments of developing countries with their approaches to the World Trade Organisation in the run up to the next round of trade negotiations. [57802]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): The Government are working with a wide range of organisations, including the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, the World bank and the Commonwealth secretariat, to help to build the capacity of developing countries to prepare for, and participate effectively in, future trade negotiations. It is important for the next trade round that there is agreement and that the developing countries have the capacity to represent their interests. We are helping in the analysis of key trade policy issues and in building policy and negotiating capacity in developing countries.

Ms Kingham: I am encouraged by that reply. Various NGOs, such as War on Want, and several


parliamentarians from the developing world have pointed out to me that there is no level playing field in the WTO negotiations. Large players such as the United States and the United Kingdom have ample resources—financial, personnel and research—whereas developing countries often do not. Because they cannot negotiate at the same level, they are disadvantaged.
Our leading player in the WTO negotiations is the Department of Trade and Industry. Have discussions taken place with the DTI or, if not, will my right hon. Friend consider them, to see whether we can build up the capacity of developing nations during the next round of talks?

Clare Short: My hon. Friend raises an important issue. One of the enhanced capacities of my Department—since we became a separate Department—is trade, investment agreement and agricultural reform expertise. My hon. Friend will know that, although there is not a level playing field in the World Trade Organisation, the situation is a lot better than it used to be. It is now a rules-based organisation and the majority of its members are developing countries. If those countries have the capacity to analyse their interests and represent them, they can be a powerful force. That is why we are conducting the training to which I referred in my answer to my hon. Friend's main question.
We are also exploring with others the possibility of establishing a legal centre attached to the World Trade Organisation which would assist very poor countries in exerting their rights under that organisation. The EC is considering an alternative proposal. We have strong relationships with the Department of Trade and Industry, and are taking forward those matters in order to ensure that developing countries secure their rights in the international trading system.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Can the Secretary of State tell the House what she intends to do to try to help countries that have been affected by the hurricane, such as Honduras, to get their trade back into sensible order? I have written to the Minister about organisations that are working on the ground in Honduras, such as Casa Alianza, which could provide assistance to street children and others. Instead of workers and resources being rushed in, those organisations could receive money and help to rebuild that country following the terrible hurricane.

Clare Short: Honduras is a heavily indebted, poor country, but it had such a good trade performance that it did not qualify for HIPC funding. Sadly, it will now qualify for that assistance because of the deterioration in its economy. There are three phases of assistance. First, we must try to get people out of the mud and stop disease and hunger. Secondly, over a few months, we will start to provide temporary shelter. When things calm down, a mission will go from my Department to central America to offer assistance. Thirdly, there will be long-term reconstruction.
Before we came into the Chamber, the hon. Gentleman gave me some documents about the street children project

with which he has been involved. I know that he does much work in that area. I shall consider what we know and what we can do to provide assistance.

Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine

Mrs. Louise Ellman: What plans she has to support the work of the Liverpool school of tropical medicine in relation to international development. [57804]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): We encourage academic institutions to support the effort to eliminate global poverty by contributing to the achievement of international development goals and targets. The Liverpool school of tropical medicine, along with other United Kingdom and world-wide bodies, is a much valued partner in those efforts.

Mrs. Ellman: The Liverpool school of tropical medicine, which is a source of great pride to Liverpool, celebrates its centenary at the end of the week. Can the Minister assure me that he will continue to explore ways of ensuring that the school is able to use its great expertise to fight disease and poverty and to contribute to the development of societies throughout the world?

Mr. Foulkes: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Liverpool school of tropical medicine on its centenary. Not only is it well known in Liverpool and the United Kingdom but it has a worldwide reputation as a result of its work on elephantiasis, river blindness, HIV-AIDS and, particularly, malaria. A most distinguished former lecturer of the Liverpool school of tropical medicine, Dr. David Nabarro, the head of the Department's health and population division. Sadly, he is to leave us. However, I am pleased to say that he is going to the World Health Organisation to head up the campaign to combat malaria. He will promote the name of the Liverpool school of tropical medicine far and wide.

Zimbabwe

Mr. Peter L. Pike: What plans she has to visit Zimbabwe to discuss aid projects in that country. [57805]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): The Secretary of State made a brief visit to Zimbabwe in January, but we have no immediate further plans to visit.

Mr. Pike: I assure my hon. Friend that our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is welcome to visit Zimbabwe again to spend several days examining the problems facing that country. She will know that the Porta Farm project just outside Harare has shown what can be achieved with a small amount of money. Zimbabwe is trying to respond to its problems in a positive manner, and I hope that the Minister or the Secretary of State will find it possible to visit that country at an early date.

Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who led a very successful Commonwealth Parliamentary Association mission to Zimbabwe earlier this year.


He visited the Porta Farm project where £5,000 from the DFID small grants scheme has done much good work. We have many projects in water and sanitation, local government services, health and land reform in Zimbabwe. If the Secretary of State is not able to visit Zimbabwe again, I would be very happy to go.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: When the Minister finds time in his busy diary to visit Zimbabwe again, no doubt he will be checking on the millions of pounds worth of aid that we provide to that country. What assurances can the hon. Gentleman give the House that he is not in the business of underwriting a deeply undemocratic and corrupt Government who are currently engaged in increasingly aggressive military operations in the Congo to prop up the Kabila regime, and who threaten now to engulf Burundi, Rwanda and Uganda in a continentwide conflict? Further, will the Minister tell the House whether he thinks that such assurances are irrelevant or essential?

Mr. Foulkes: We are working hard for peace in the Congo. We have made that clear in our Department as well as through the Foreign Office. We are reassessing our programme. I can tell the hon. Lady that we have made it absolutely clear that we are willing to support land reform as long as it is transparent, properly managed and cost effective, that there is a poverty focus and that it includes all stakeholders. We are concerned about the extent and impact of Zimbabwe's involvement in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We have made it clear that we can establish long-term partnerships only with countries that are committed to the elimination of poverty and which develop appropriate economic, social and environmental policies. This includes partner countries not diverting limited resources into excessive military expenditure.

Know-how Fund

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: How many projects are being supported by the know-how fund; and if she will make a statement. [57806]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): The know-how fund is supporting 573 projects.
The aim of the fund is to support the former communist countries in their transition to pluralist democracies and well-regulated market economies in a way that benefits all levels of society, particularly the poorest.

Mr. Llwyd: I thank the Minister for that reply. The Minister will know that Slovenia and Estonia are two states that are currently aspiring to European Union membership. Both states have great problems. Slovenia has economic problems and Estonia has very serious environmental problems. Is it not therefore unfortunate that there is to be a reduction in the total amount of know-how fund expenditure in the Baltic states?

Mr. Foulkes: As well as know-how fund expenditure, we contribute a huge amount towards EU expenditure in those pre-accession countries through the Poland and Hungary aid for reconstruction of the economy programme, so there is a great deal of British money

going in that relates to accession. Through our bilateral programme, we do not support accession per se but we support projects, including environmental ones, which help those states graduate towards accession. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we take account of that. If he has any particular suggestions that he would like us to consider, I would be happy to meet him to discuss them.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Many know-how fund projects will depend on volunteers. Is the Minister aware that Voluntary Service Overseas is now, for the first time in nearly 30 years, recruiting school leavers for some of its projects? On behalf of all gap-year organisations, for which I know the hon. Gentleman has a great deal of respect, will his Department consider funding such organisations and recognise at last that school leavers on longer-term projects, with the right structure and training, can aid the countries that they visit as well as aiding their own development?

Mr. Foulkes: More years ago than I care to remember, I used to run the Scottish Union of Students overseas volunteer programme, which was very successful. The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who has moved round the country from East Lothian to South Edinburgh and who now resides in Devizes, knows very well what I did. I say honestly that I was not aware that the VSO had moved back to taking school leavers. We have been supporting substantially its programme for volunteers, with each volunteer costing about £12,500. We have been giving significant support. If the VSO is supporting school leavers, we would certainly consider any request that it made for additional support.

Kosovo

Dr. Norman A. Godman: What assistance has been given by (a) her Department and (b) the European Union to the people made homeless in Kosovo in recent months. [57807]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is taking the lead in co-ordinating humanitarian assistance in Kosovo. We have provided £3 million in emergency assistance since March and the EC some £6.5 million. Those and other contributions should meet immediate needs; at the moment, the UNHCR does have enough money. We are in close touch with it and with other agencies and will shortly send a mission from my Department to review the position and to assess future needs.

Dr. Godman: I welcome my right hon. Friend's contribution, but I hope that the recalcitrance of certain elements of the Kosovo Liberation Army will not deter the European Union from providing the substantial funds that are needed for a major house-building programme. Should not the KLA be urged to play the long game in relation to its aspirations for independence to help with the rebuilding of the infrastructure?

Clare Short: I agree completely with my hon. Friend. First, I assure him that the resources will be provided, so that people can rebuild their houses and go home; of course, the monitors are necessary to give them the


security to feel safe when they go home. Secondly, we all understand the proper sense of grievance that people in Kosovo have, but fighting to establish an independent state will not help them. It is much better to proceed with the support of the international community and democratically.

Mr. Gary Streeter: The Secretary of State will probably be aware—because her officials helpfully provided briefing for me—that I spent five days last week in Kosovo I saw at first hand the terrible plight of some of the 200,000 displaced people and some of their 20,000 destroyed homes. She will already know that many of them are living in unspeakable conditions and winter is arriving. Does she agree that the aid agencies are doing an excellent job in trying to meet the immediate short-term problems of food, shelter and medicine, but that their life would be made a lot easier if some of the payments from ECHO—the European Community Humanitarian Office—could be speeded up? Many of them talked of a logjam in the system.
Will the right hon. Lady confirm that her Department is committed to the region in the longer term and, in particular, will she set out her thoughts on support for health care and education in the longer term? Does she agree that this is, after all, a country in Europe and, as is so often the case, it is when the shooting stops that the problems begin?

Clare Short: I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that the needs are great. I think that we are pretty well organised—non-governmental organisations led by the UNHCR are working. We are a bit worried that too many organisations are going in. It is better if we have more organisations specialising. I agree with him that we must get people home and get proper housing constructed for them, so that they can survive the winter.
On ECHO, it is true that the disbursement of all EC funds is disappointingly slow. There is a need for great increases in efficiency in the whole development sector and we are working hard to try to achieve that.
In terms of long-term support, we hope that, if we can achieve peace and respect for human rights in Kosovo, as in the whole of the Balkans, the normal investment that would come from the World bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and so on could quickly reconstruct these economies. They are basically educated people with plenty of resources. It is all the war and conflict that is causing so much damage.

Natural Disasters

Mr. Nigel Evans: What assistance her Department has given in 1998 to countries suffering from natural disasters. [57808]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): During 1998, the Department for International Development has responded to an unprecedented number of natural disasters, including floods in east Africa, China, Bangladesh, India, a tidal wave in Papua New Guinea and hurricanes in central America and the Caribbean; when we are through the

present crisis, we have to look at whether environmental causes were behind the phenomenon. In addition, my Department has continuing commitments to natural disasters from previous years such as that in Montserrat. The assistance provided to date in 1998 totals £47,220,940.

Mr. Evans: Does the Secretary of State think that the amount of money that she has at her disposal for international disasters is sufficient to meet the needs of those particular countries? Does she agree that what is important is not only the amount of financial assistance that is given to the countries, but the speed with which the money gets through? It strikes me that the assistance that has been given to Nicaragua, Honduras and Guatemala is not only too little, but has come very late to help them to minimise the casualties that they now face.

Clare Short: First, on the question whether the Department has sufficient resources for disasters, the answer is yes. We programme a certain amount of money for disasters of all sorts, including those arising from war, but, by definition, they are unpredictable. The Department has the capacity to reprogramme and find more resources if there is a high and disproportionate number of natural disasters. We have sufficient funding, so that is no problem.
I agree that speed is essential. My conflict and emergency department is famous throughout the world for being one of the speediest. It is no good simply appearing on television and pledging money—we have to produce food and help on the ground quickly. We were lucky that HMS Sheffield was in the area so that we could help. We managed to get food and medical supplies to the area very quickly. The hon. Gentleman is right in what he says, but we are responding. There has not been a terrible delay and things are getting better in central America.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Mr. Christopher Chope: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 11 November.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): Earlier today, together with you, Madam Speaker, right hon. and hon. Members and millions of people across the country, I observed a two-minute silence to commemorate the sacrifices made by so many on behalf of us all. Later today, in addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

Mr. Chope: Is it not heartening that so many people participated in the two-minute silence this morning? As we are remembering those who gave their lives so that we could have our freedom, will the Prime Minister tell us why, in March this year, his Government decided to reject a grant application by St. Dunstan's, the charity which


looks after service men blinded in the service of their country, apparently on the ground of insufficient priority? Will he today announce that he will reverse that decision?

The Prime Minister: No; we have actually done a great deal for such organisations.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is heartening that so many people observed the two-minute silence, which should be an event that unites the whole of this House and the country.

Miss Melanie Johnson: In view of the grave news today about the withdrawal of United Nations arms inspectors from Iraq—a further sign, if one were needed, of Saddam Hussein's willingness to flout international law—will my right hon. Friend tell us what steps the Government will be taking to deal with the rapidly deteriorating situation in Iraq?

The Prime Minister: Saddam Hussein is in breach of not only the UN resolutions but the agreement that he made with Kofi Annan, the United Nations Secretary-General. His disagreement is with the whole world community. It is not a technical breach of the agreement—it is a substantial breach because it is clear from the evidence that, if unchecked, he will try to develop weapons of mass destruction. The evidence uncovered recently by French and Swiss officials of the attempt to decontaminate warheads is further proof of that. He may think that the international community lacks the will to act, but, if so, he is seriously and profoundly wrong. We will act if he does not immediately come back into compliance with the UN resolutions and abide by the agreement that he made.

Mr. William Hague: The Opposition support the Prime Minister's remarks.
In the European elections next year, should not people be able to vote for the candidate of their choice, rather than for a party list that leaves them no such choice—and that, with the highly unusual exception of the Northern Ireland peace negotiations, has never been used in our country?

The Prime Minister: No, because the system we are proposing is far simpler. The election will cover all regions and there could be up to 50 names on a ballot paper and no individual constituencies, so I believe that our system is the best for those elections.

Mr. Hague: Is not the reason that the Prime Minister wants that system the fact that closed lists give power to party stooges? Is he aware that local people in the midlands complained that one of the Labour candidates imposed on them knew nothing of their area? The Birmingham Post reported Labour bosses as saying that he did know something about the area because he had
acted in the Rocky Horror Show at Birmingham Rep earlier this year… and directed Kiss of the Spider Woman at the New Vic in Newcastle-Under-Lyme.
Is not the truth that the Prime Minister wants a system that eliminates any kind of independent thinking? Is he not undermining the democratic traditions of this country for his own party purposes?

The Prime Minister: No. That is absolute nonsense. The difference is simply that, on the list that the right

hon. Gentleman is proposing, people would be prevented from voting for the party alone. When we are electing people on the basis of regions, with very large numbers of people, the system that we are proposing is a far better and more simple one, which has been used extensively elsewhere. As he admitted in his initial question, the system was pioneered in Northern Ireland by the previous Government. As the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), said:
I believe that this is a fair and balanced system that will produce a representative outcome.
So, thank you for the suggestion.

Mr. Hague: If the Prime Minister reads on a sentence in the statement of my right hon. Friend he will see that he said:
I have to say that there is no precedent that I know for the circumstances and complexities that exist in Northern Ireland."—[Official Report, 21 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 498–501.]
That is how he justified the system. Why does the Prime Minister not give the full quote?
The Prime Minister is now trying to prevent one of his Welsh Members of Parliament from leading the Labour party in Wales, trying to prevent one of his Scottish Members of Parliament from even standing for the Scottish Parliament and trying to prevent one of his London Members of Parliament from being a candidate for mayor of London. So, to make vetoing people easier in future, the Prime Minister wants a system for the European Parliament that gives power to party officials and not to the voter. Is that not putting party before country?

The Prime Minister: No, it is not. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary pointed out in yesterday's debate, under the system that the right hon. Gentleman is recommending, perversely, someone could get elected with fewer votes than other people on the list. The system that we are proposing is therefore a far better one. It is also used widely elsewhere. As for all the right hon. Gentleman's other pre-prepared words on the Labour party, I very gently tell him that, when I want his suggestions on party management, I will drop him a note.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Will the Prime Minister congratulate Chorley and South Ribble, and Preston hospital trusts on the way in which they have brought together clinical services to ensure that patients come first, and the way in which the two trusts will continue to operate for the benefit of those constituencies?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I will congratulate them. I will also point out, as I am sure that my hon. Friend would want me to, that the extra £21 billion that will go next year into the health service—today we have had official confirmation that the Conservatives are opposed to that investment—will provide a better service for my hon. Friend's constituents and allow those two trusts to go from strength to strength.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Has the Prime Minister seen the recent report showing that up to 27 million pensioners in Britain could be in severe financial hardship in retirement because of the underfunding of pensions? Is there not only one sensible way of solving the problem in


a practical manner—by introducing compulsory second-tier or stakeholder pensions? Next week, that will be proposed by the former Minister for Welfare Reform, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). Will the Prime Minister and the Government support him?

The Prime Minister: We said that we will publish our paper on pensions reform in due course. I shall not comment on those findings until they are published. Of course we understand that pensions need full-scale reform, which is exactly why we are examining the issue. However, we have to ensure that reform is right for all categories of pensioner.

Mr. Ashdown: The Prime Minister says that the Government are undecided, but would not "confused" be a better adjective? Last week, the Financial Times was briefed to say that the Government would drop compulsory pensions. Yesterday, The Scotsman was told that they would back compulsory pensions. Which is right? If he cannot give us a date on which he will be able to tell us that, will he please at least tell us when the result will be published?

The Prime Minister: As I have already said, as we will publish our proposals, I should not tell the right hon. Gentleman what they are now. However, we can discuss the proposals as soon as they are published. I should tell him that, since the Government came to power, we have not only cut VAT on fuel to help pensioners but given them a special winter bonus. We have also introduced for the first time a guaranteed minimum income for pensioners. All those measures are worth while for pensioners, but I agree that we have to reform the system fundamentally. We are taking on an issue that was ducked by the previous Government for 18 years.

Mr. Ian Davidson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the recent action of President Clinton, who fired one of his political allies into space? Does that course of action commend itself to my right hon. Friend and would he be willing to discuss it with the Liberals when they next meet?

The Prime Minister: As I was just saying to the Leader of the Liberal Democrats, there are extensive consultations on that and I will get back to him in due course.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Does the Prime Minister recall that, back in July, I asked him how he would meet the three-year spending plans that had just been introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Does he recall that he answered me by saying, "Unemployment bad, new deal good. It is simple. Geddit?" On the day that the Bank of England has said that the Chancellor's growth forecasts are hopelessly unrealistic, on the day that unemployment has again gone up and on the day that VAT receipts to the Treasury are going down, does the Prime Minister not think that his reaction back in July was just a tad optimistic and complacent?

The Prime Minister: First, I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman reminded me of my answer to him in July as the question and the answer had slipped my mind

temporarily. As he will know from today's figures, over the past three months employment has risen by 124,000. Since the election, 400,000 new jobs have been created, with 237,000 new vacancies in the past few months. There are 160,000 young people on the new deal, with 30,000 already in jobs. I can tell him today, and I hope that he will congratulate us on it, that youth unemployment—young people unemployed for more than six months—is now at its lowest level since the mid-1970s. That is a record of which any Government would be proud, but I take it from what the hon. Gentleman said about spending that he, too, is opposed to our spending plans for next year. I believe that that spending is right. It is the correct investment for the country, it is right for economic management, and I hope that one of these days the hon. Gentleman and those on the Opposition Front Bench will come round to seeing that.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Prime Minister has been misinformed. Is it not a matter of record that the French and Swiss tests to which he referred proved negative? It is true that the first American test proved positive, but the second American test proved negative and that result was suppressed. Can he give the name of any Arab country—just one will do —which now supports military action against Iraq in the next month?

The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend has just come back from Iraq and I understand his strong feelings on it, but the French and the Swiss found clear evidence that warheads had been decontaminated from weapons of mass destruction. On the evidence that we have compiled on Saddam Hussein, going back over a period of years, it is clear that he has attempted to develop weapons of mass destruction. After all, that is why he wants the inspectors out —so that we do not know about the weapons of mass destruction that he is developing. He is the only leader that I know of anywhere in the world who has used weapons of mass destruction–5,000 people, mainly women and children, died as a result of his use of such weapons.
Saddam Hussein made an agreement at the conclusion of the Gulf war and then made a further agreement with the UN Secretary-General. All we are saying is that he should abide by that agreement. That is not an unreasonable position. The quarrel that he has is with the whole of the international community and if we allow him to get away with a substantial breach of the agreement and to develop weapons of mass destruction, we will pay a very heavy price in the future.

Mr. Norman Baker: If he will make an official visit to Newhaven.

The Prime Minister: I have no immediate plans to do so.

Mr. Baker: I am sorry to hear that, given the serious situation facing Newhaven, with the possible demise of the ferry after 173 years of running between Newhaven and Dieppe. Is the Prime Minister aware that one of the most famous people alleged to have used the ferry is Lord Lucan, when he was fleeing the country? What steps will the Prime Minister take to ensure that the ferry does not disappear as Lord Lucan did?

The Prime Minister: I did not catch the end of that question, but I assume that the hon. Gentleman was not


asking me to search for Lord Lucan. The hon. Gentleman met the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) this week. He has been campaigning hard on the issue, as have some Labour Members. We recognise the importance of Newhaven as a port, but we have limited powers to influence commercial decisions by P and O Stena on operational and investment matters. However, we have put in place measures under the capital challenge scheme, under the single regeneration budget and in respect of European Interreg funding that have put millions of pounds into Newhaven. We know that the situation is serious, but there are limits to how far we can intervene in a commercial decision. I know that the hon. Gentleman will carry on fighting the case for his constituents. We shall do what we can within the constraints of government, but we cannot interfere with the decision that the company has made.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Why is the Prime Minister afraid of giving the electorate the opportunity of voting for an individual candidate in the European elections?

The Prime Minister: I should like to add to what I have already said on that to the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). The choice is between the system that the hon. Lady is proposing—which would prevent people from voting for a party alone, even though the majority of people will not know the merits of the individual members—and our system, which is simpler and better. It is used extensively abroad. People have the choice to vote for the political party that they want. I believe that that is a far better way to go.

Mr. David Stewart: Is my right hon. Friend aware that more than 1.5 million people in the United Kingdom suffer from diabetes, which is the main cause of blindness in those under 65? The national health service spends more than £2 billion per year on treating the effects of diabetes. Will my right hon. Friend look into the case for having a targeted, selective screening programme for diabetes so that we can deal more efficiently in future with a disease that kills, maims and blinds?

The Prime Minister: I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has done campaigning on the issue in the House and outside. Decisions on the introduction of a national screening programme will be made in the light of the report from the national screening committee, due early next year. We shall continue to work with the British Diabetic Association and others to improve care. The Department of Health has commissioned guidelines for clinicians about the most effective treatment of diabetes. The extra investment that we are putting into the national health service next year will improve services for all, including those with diabetes.

Mr. William Hague: The Bank of England inflation report, published today, says that the working time directive will add to inflation. Does the Prime Minister agree with the Bank?

The Prime Minister: Actually, the Bank of England says that, although there may be some marginal effect as

a result of the working time directive, we are going to meet the central projections for inflation and its growth forecasts are in line with those that we have put forward, to which the right hon. Gentleman has objected.

Mr. Hague: So, the Prime Minister agrees that the working time directive will increase inflation. Everyone knows that it will add to inflation and therefore to interest rates. Everyone knows that it will also add to unemployment. With the jobless total up by 7,000 today, is it not the worst possible time to add extra regulation and bureaucracy to the burdens that businesses now have to bear?

The Prime Minister: No. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that the working time directive was introduced by the European Union under the previous Government and would have had to be implemented by any Government—no matter who was in power. He may disagree, but I believe that the fact that employees, for the first time, will get four weeks minimum holiday entitlement is a good thing, not a bad thing.
The Bank says:
it is not sufficient to warrant changing the central projection for … inflation two years ahead.
The right hon. Gentleman did not mention that it also said:
Measures such as the New Deal and the Working Families Tax Credit are designed to increase the supply of labour, and could lower the natural rate of unemployment.

Mr. Hague: It also says that the directive will cause an upward skew in inflation. If the best argument that the Prime Minister has for the working time directive is to pretend that the Conservative party was in favour of it, he is pretty short of arguments on the subject. Are not today's unemployment figures yet another sign of a downturn made in Downing street? Businesses are facing a flood of new regulations and bureaucracy. When will Ministers understand that red tape strangles businesses and jobs?

The Prime Minister: It is typical of the right hon. Gentleman that his response is to abandon the minimum wage and to get rid of minimum holiday entitlement, as he wants to do. Apparently, he also opposes the family-friendly policy of unpaid parental leave, and he wants to cancel the new deal and the working families tax credit.
It is important to get the situation in balance. Since the election, 400,000 more jobs have been created, and more than 237,000 new vacancies. Long-term and youth unemployment are down, and unemployment is down since the election. The question is, given the difficulties for jobs and industry over the next year, what is the right policy? We say that new fiscal and monetary rules and Bank of England independence are right. The right hon. Gentleman is opposed to those. We say investment in skills and education is right, including the biggest boost to education ever. He has set himself opposed to that and described it as a "spending spree" in today's edition of The Daily Telegraph. I assume that means that he is against it. Is he against it?
The third element is the new deal and the working families tax credit. The right hon. Gentleman has now said that he is against those. Let me remind him that the


working families tax credit will make 1.5 million families £17 a week better off on average. Just so his Back Benchers understand it—everyone knows what a bold leader he is—they will all go into the next election saying that those 1.5 million people who are, on average, £17 better off will lose that money. Well, roll on that day.

Hon. Members: More, more.

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Alan Simpson: On a day when we rightly pay tribute to the generation who lived through the first world war and the many who died in it, will the Prime Minister resist the temptation to be distracted by the Liberal Democrats and address a different starting point? Surely if there is an act of remembrance that the country owes to the generation of today's pensioners, it is to do the one thing that the Tories in government steadfastly refused to do—to restore the value of the state pension and its link with earnings.

The Prime Minister: We have given our reasons, on many occasions, why we cannot commit ourselves to that. The reason is that the cost would be substantial, and the money would not be spread among those pensioners who need it most. We have made it clear that the crucial thing is to get help, first of all, to the poorest pensioners. That is the reason for the –50 winter bonus for those on income support and the minimum pension guarantee. I believe that the substantial extra investment of –2.5 billion over the next three years—opposed by the Tories, so we will take no lessons from them—which will get money to those who need it most, is the right thing to do. I think that most pensioners will understand that.

Mr. Adrian Sanders: The chief constable of my area claims that, in 1999–2000, he will suffer a budget cut of £6 million, which is the equivalent of 300 officers in Devon and Cornwall. The Government claim that funding is adequate. Who is telling the truth about the budget for the Devon and Cornwall police for that year?

The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been helpfully reminding me, we are putting £1.24 billion extra into the police and the budget allocations have not yet been decided. If I have any news for the hon. Gentleman, I will write to him.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend recall the court decision at the beginning of this year, which stated that thousands of miners, ex-miners and their widows would receive settlements under the legislation on chronic bronchitis and emphysema? After all this time, those benefits have not yet been paid. Way back in the 1970s, under a previous Labour Government, we had a scheme to deal with pneumoconiosis and, later, asbestosis. We managed to find a way out of the problem by ensuring a sliding scale of payments, initiated through the Government.
We are having trouble getting the matter resolved. It is true that some lawyers are causing a little antagonism, but in view of the fact that my right hon. Friend can knock a few heads together and as we are meeting the Minister for

Energy and Industry in a few minutes' time to try to resolve the matter, will he ensure that he gives us a chuck-on?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend could teach everyone one a thing or two about lobbying. I understand that we are trying to make early payments up front and I will look into the situation. I cannot commit myself to what he suggests, but we will do our best and I am sure that he will put all those points to the Minister when he meets him shortly.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Prime Minister will probably be aware that, next year, Cornwall and parts of Devon will see the first total eclipse in this country since 1926. Bearing in mind that the 1926 eclipse caused the largest mass movement of people by train in history and the fact that it is predicted that millions of people will try to visit a peninsula that suffers from infrastructure difficulties, the police, ambulance and fire services are expecting to have to pay out millions of pounds in extra costs. That will hit local services. So far, the Home Office has said that the problem is purely local. Surely the eclipse is a genuinely national event that needs national support. Will the right hon. Gentleman ask his colleagues to look into the financial costs that are about to fall on us?

The Prime Minister: I thought for a moment that we were going to get a Liberal Democrat on his feet without asking for more money, but we were disappointed. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that a large number of people will go to the area to see the total eclipse of the sun. I am sure that that will impose additional costs and burdens, but there is a formula for dealing with such matters. [Interruption.] Yes, there is and it will be applied in the hon. Gentleman's case as it would be in everyone else's. No matter how much the Liberal Democrats may want me to do so, I will not write blank cheques at the Dispatch Box.

Mr. Clive Efford: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern that exists about the World Trade Organisation's interpretation of article 20, which allows countries to prevent products that harm human, animal or plant life from being imported? Is he aware that a European Union ban on the sale of meat products derived from animals on which hormones have been used to accelerate growth was overturned by the WTO because it violated world trade agreements?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that such rulings prevent organisations such as the EU from protecting people on environmental and health grounds? At the World Trade Organisation negotiations next year, will he argue for greater priority to be given to those issues?

The Prime Minister: As I said at the 50th anniversary of the world trading system in Geneva in May, in general terms we believe in, and support, trade liberalisation, but it is important that we do not do so at any cost and that we consider the environmental impact of any proposals. The case that my hon. Friend raises is already before the WTO and was the subject of an Adjournment debate last week.
We have already made it clear that we support the European Commission's proposal for a high-level meeting on trade and the environment to thrash out those issues.


However, there is more than one response to the problem that he mentions and to the WTO ruling, and we must proceed very carefully before we give a definitive view.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Was not the Prime Minister's reply to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) on the working time directive gratuitously superficial? Is it not the case that the increase in unemployment in this country has two causes—the extra burden of regulation and taxation, which amounts to some £39 billion, and the impost that we pay to the European Union, which is a net contribution of £2 billion? Moreover, the European Union's financial perspective is that its expenditure should grow by 19 per cent. The British worker is being hammered at home and milked abroad.

The Prime Minister: I saw that the hon. Gentleman received warm support for his question from Conservative Members, but I certainly did not mean to be gratuitous in my response to the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). I do not believe that the working time directive—which will give people the right, for the first time, to four weeks holiday entitlement—is an unnecessary burden on business. It is extraordinary, but entirely typical, that the Conservative party should believe that the way forward is to cancel any basic minimum standards that people have in the workplace.
On the money that we pay to the European Union, the hon. Gentleman has a perfectly honourable position—he opposes the European Union. That is not the

Government's view. We believe that we gain enormously by being members of the European Union. We gain in trade—

Mr. John Hayes: You are Europe's poodle.

The Prime Minister: I do not know whether that was the Conservative party's third view. We gain enormously in trade, jobs and industry from our membership of the European Union. The best thing for us to do in the difficult time ahead—

Mr. Hayes: You're just Europe's poodle.

Madam Speaker: Order. I will not have the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) standing there shouting, something that has gone on throughout Question Time. I caution him that, if it happens next week, he will be sent out during questions. The same applies to all hon. Members. If hon. Members want to participate, they must take their seats.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman can go and join Mr. Portillo.
The way in which to deal with jobs and business over the next year is as I have described. The choice is simple: what is the best way in which to steer a course of stability in the year ahead? We repeat that the best way is to make the investments that we have made, to tackle the problems of social exclusion as we are doing and to hold firm to Bank of England independence. I believe that that position is supported by the vast majority of people in this country, who do not want a return either to underfunded public services or to the boom and bust of the Conservatives.

Points of Order

Mr. Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will no doubt have seen the story in The Times today. I seek your guidance on whether it is in order for me to indulge in idle chatter on social occasions in the House with my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), who is a member of the Territorial Army.

Madam Speaker: I have not seen any comment in The Times. I, for one in the House, do not comment on newspaper reports, and that is a very wise stand to take.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) raises a matter that is of concern to a number of hon. Members, of whom I am one. According to fully verified reports, a circular has been issued to members of the Territorial Army saying that they must not, on pain of court martial, speak to Members of Parliament or to others about the changes to the TA that the Government are proposing. I am about to participate in Exercise Red Javelin, and I want to know whether I can speak to the paras.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: rose—

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman who is rising should say nothing. I understand that I have already received a letter from him on this matter, which concerns privilege, and I must deal with it on that basis.

Mr. Derek Wyatt: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would welcome your guidance. On 21 October, I made a speech, at column 1199, relating to the steel industry in my constituency. I have with me a petition from Co-Steel Sheerness plc, which misrepresents my position, and I seek your guidance, with particular reference to "Erskine May", which says:
On 22 April 1699 the Commons resolved, 'That the publishing the names of Members of this House and reflecting upon them, and misrepresenting their proceedings in Parliament, is a breach of the privilege of this House, and destructive of the freedom of Parliament'.
Will you advise me on whether it is a matter of privilege?

Madam Speaker: Let me give some guidance to the hon. Gentleman, who is relatively new to the House. It may well be a matter of privilege and, if he will write to me, I will consider it on that basis.

Registration of Nannies

Mr. Keith Vaz: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend local authority registers under the Children Act 1989 to cover nannies who look after children on domestic premises.
I want to raise an issue of profound importance to many—indeed, perhaps most — hon. Members: child care. The hours in which the House operates mean that, like many hon. Members, I am constrained in the amount of time that I can spend with my children and I am dependent on good-quality and reliable child care. Every working parent has a right to reliable child care, and that is why I feel that it is imperative that existing legislation be extended to cover not only child minders but nannies and au pairs who look after children in the child's home.
The nanny profession is growing rapidly as the number of families with both parents working increases. A recent estimate puts the number of nannies at 100,000, and a survey has concluded that 60 per cent. of women who have an A-level or higher qualification choose to employ a nanny when they return to work after maternity leave. Nannies are no longer the preserve of an elite few in Britain but are a widespread phenomenon. Indeed, they are central to the whole issue of child care.
I welcome the Government's development of a national child care strategy and pay tribute to the role played by my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Social Security. I especially welcome the consultation exercise launched earlier this year, which is due to report at the end of the year.
In the past two weeks, the Government have made some excellent announcements on the family, women and children, furthering the social policy agenda, but I believe that the idea of a child care strategy, and indeed of a policy framework that encourages women to return to work, is incomplete unless provision is made for the universal registration and regulation of all child carers, including nannies.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard), who raised this topic in an Adjournment debate and whose early-day motion gained 176 signatures from hon. Members of all parties. I acknowledge the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Reading, West (Mr. Salter), for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) and for Stafford (Mr. Kidney). I want to single out the efforts of organisations such as Playpen, the Pre-school Learning Alliance and the Institute of Childcare and Social Education, all of which have campaigned for a register and made numerous representations in the consultation exercise.
The principal reason for a register is that there is no system for checking the suitability and history of nannies and au pairs. We do not, unfortunately, live in a world where characters like Mary Poppins can appear, as if by magic, with qualities perfectly attuned to the demands of the children under their care.
All the checks must be done by parents themselves, and even then there is no way of checking police records on potential carers. There are no mechanisms for nannies to be regularly inspected at work, to ensure that they are carrying out their duties properly. The onus is completely


on the parent and, although that is good for parental choice, parents receive no support in making their choice; nor is there any safeguard against a mistake or oversight by a parent.
The lack of regulation also has implications for the tax credit system. Because nannies are not registered, their employers cannot claim child care tax credit, as do mothers who use other forms of child care. Again, a valuable part of the Government's social policy is undermined by the lack of registration.
It is not just parents and children who stand to gain from registration. The current system provides no safeguards to protect nannies from exploitation or mistreatment by their employers. A properly regulated system would ameliorate the situation.
The necessity for greater regulation has been made clear to all by the recent high-profile cases of harm coming to children while under the care of an unqualified carer. Louise Woodward had no qualifications to be a child carer. Whatever the dispute over the verdict in her case—and her constituency Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), still proclaims her innocence, as she does—the result was that a baby died while in her care and she was convicted. The Australian au pair, Louise Sullivan, is awaiting trial for murder of a baby who died while in her care. If they wished to, both Louise Woodward and Louise Sullivan could start work immediately as nannies in this country. Astonishing as that may sound, there is nothing to stop them doing so.
However, the problem is not confined to high-profile cases. Those of us who need nannies in our homes know the problems. My wife and I have advertised for nannies, interviewed them and taken up references. As with other jobs, the written references—what employers are prepared to put in writing—are completely different from what they are prepared to say verbally. The difference in the case of nannies is that employees are given responsibility for that which is most precious to parents.
Voluntary or private registers, although of benefit in providing some security, cannot be seen as the whole solution. The cost to parents of using such registers, and to nannies of entering themselves, can be preclusive. More importantly, there is no mechanism for such registers to be supervised by the Government or social services or to stop agencies simply operating as a profiteering database containing the names and addresses of nannies. Any sense of security gained from such registers may be false.
The minefield of private and voluntary registers is demonstrated by the experience of the Worldwide Nanny Register. It set up a nanny register with various back-up and support services for nannies and parents on a not-for-profit basis. However, it was forced to cease its operations because there was no compulsion on nannies to join and the register could not survive. The answer must be a properly supervised and publicly run register.

The aim of everyone in the campaign is for a national register, managed and supervised by the Government. However, the creation of a national register may take some years and much finance to set up. In the meantime, a simple legislative measure is all that is needed to create registers at local level.
Part X of the Children's Act 1989 requires local authorities to keep registers of child minders and those who provide day care for children, which are open to consultation by the public, and empowers local authorities to make regular inspections of child carers at work. To get on to a register, a child minder must have two personal references, a medical reference, two social work inquiry checks and a police check. However, the Act specifically states that those employed by parents as nannies do not count as child minders and are not covered by the Act. My Bill would strike out the legislative exemption for nannies and extend the Act to cover them.
Last week, I joined other hon. Members and members of the Playpen Campaign in a meeting Baroness Jay, the new Minister for Women. She assured us that she sees quality child care as an issue of crucial importance. I feel confident that the question of regulation will be looked into when the consultation exercise comes to an end. As we were meeting my noble Friend, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health was making a statement in the House outlining the Government's plans for a national register of people considered unsuitable to work with children. That is another positive step forward and a register for nannies would surely be only one small stage further.
Thank you again, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to raise this important issue. I conclude by quoting Tricia Pritchard, chair of the Playpen Campaign, who says:
There needs to be greater regulation of nanny agencies, including police checks and a requirement for a minimum standard of relevant qualifications, to make sure that parents can have peace of mind about their children's safety.
We all know how important it is to avoid bureaucratic over-regulation, but there is a crucial balance to be struck between regulation and safety. It is clear that, if security for parents and children and, indeed, nannies and au pairs, is to be guaranteed, the only possible course of action is to set up a national register.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Keith Vaz, Mr. David Taylor, Mr. Martin Salter, Jackie Ballard, Mrs. Helen Brinton, Ms Ruth Kelly, Caroline Flint, Ms Julie Morgan, Jenny Jones, Mr. Andrew Dismore, Mr. David Kidney, Mrs. Anne Campbell.

REGISTRATION OF NANNIES

Mr. Keith Vaz accordingly presented a Bill to extend local authority registers under the Children Act 1989 to cover nannies who look after children on domestic premises: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Thursday 12 November, and to be printed [Bill 258].

SCOTLAND BILL (PROGRAMME)

Ordered,
That the Order [13th January]relating to the Scotland Bill (programme) be supplemented as follows—

Lords Amendments

1.Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed in two allotted days and shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion three and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the second allotted day.

—(1) The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order, namely: Nos. 215to220, 1 to 87, 125 to 129,237 to 278, 88 to 124, 130 to 214, 221 to 236 and to 302.

(2) The two allotted days shall be allotted in the manner shown in the Table set out below.

(3) Each part of the proceedings shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at the expiry of the period (calculated from the commencement of proceedings on the Bill) specified in the second column of the Table.

TABLE


Allotted day
Lords Amendments
Allotted period


First day
Nos. 215 to 220 and 1
1 hour 30 minutes



Nos. 2 to 22
2 hours



Nos. 23 to 52
3 hours 30 minutes



Nos. 53 to 87
4 hours



Nos. 125 to 129
5 hours 30 minutes



Nos. 237 to 278
6 hours 30 minutes


Second day
Nos. 88 to 124, 130 to 214, 221 to 236 and 279 to 302
3 hours 30 minutes

3.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2.

(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question already proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.

(3) If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment the Speaker shall then put forthwith—

(a) the Question on any further amendment to the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown, and
(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in the Amendment or (as the case may be) in the Amendment as amended.

(4) The Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to the Speaker to involve questions of Privilege.

(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith—

(a) the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown, to a Lords Amendment, and
(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in the Amendment or (as the case may be) in the Amendment as amended.

(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House disagrees with the Lords in a Lords Amendment.

(7) The Speaker shall then put forthwith with respect to the Lords Amendments designated by the Speaker which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in those Amendments.

(8) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments.

(9) As soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments, or disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment which is moved by a Minister of the Crown and relevant to the Lords Amendment.

(10) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chairman.

(11) proceedings under this paragraph shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

Supplemental

4.A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons Shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

5.Stadings Order No. 15(l)(Exempted business)shall apply to proceedings on Consideration of the Lords Amendments—

(a) on the first allotted day, for any part of six and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill which falls after Ten o'clock, and
(b) on the second allotted day, for any part of the period of three and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill which falls after Ten o'clock.

Proceedings on the Motion, if not previously after their commencement (order of 13th January).—[Mr. Allen.]

Orders of the Day — Scotland Bill

[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]

Lords amendments considered.

Schedule 1

CONSTITUENCIES, REGIONS AND REGIONAL MEMBERS

Lords amendment: No. 215, in page 57, line 5, after ("constituencies") insert ("of the Scottish Parliament")

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 216 to 220.

Mr. Dewar: Today, we continue a long saga that has become part of our lives over the past year or so. I offer hon. Members the consolation that we approach the end, as we are now dealing with Lords amendments to the Scotland Bill. Today and next Monday, the House will be asked to consider the formidable number of amendments made to the Bill during its passage through the Lords. The Government have taken, as is traditional and proper, particularly with such complex legislation, the opportunity to strengthen and improve the Bill against its drafting when it left the House last May. I hope to persuade hon. Members that many of the changes made in their lordships' House are both desirable and to be welcomed. I am sure that the Opposition Front-Bench teams will join me in the task, looking squarely, but, I hope, briefly in most cases, at the merits of each proposal as it comes along.
It is therefore perhaps a little ironic that I have to start by asking the House to disagree with the Lords on a group of amendments that relate to a matter of some importance: the size of the Scottish Parliament, and whether it should remain, irrespective of what may happen in other parts of Scotland's parliamentary representation, at 129 Members. Let me say immediately that I believe that there is a genuine desire among most hon. Members—and among Members in the Lords—who have debated the matter to ensure that the Scottish Parliament can operate effectively and on a basis that will inspire and command public confidence. To some Conservative Members, its size is the most important or determining factor of its ability to do that. I do not agree, and want to advance some arguments to support my point of view. We believe that quality is important and that the working methods of the Parliament are an important part of the process. In addition, the involvement of the wider community beyond Parliament is an element in the general process and in the preparations made to allow the Parliament to operate effectively.
I pay tribute to the consultative steering group, to the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution and to the representatives of other parties who have joined him on the steering group. Great progress has been made: one or two ideas have been picked up and knocked about in the public press in a way that I regret, but that is the price

one pays for innovating and producing ideas that are novel and depart somewhat from the precedents accepted here. We have always made it clear that we would take the best from this place, but that, if Scottish conditions made it necessary to think anew, we would not hesitate to do so.
There are points of principle involved in the Bill and in the amendments to it. One point of principle that those of us on the Government Benches think is of some significance and importance is that there is genuine virtue in a linkage between Westminster and Scottish parliamentary constituencies; and we see merit in coterminous boundaries. The White Paper "Scotland's Parliament", which is familiar to all hon. Members who have the staying power still to participate in these debates, spelt out clearly the importance that the Government attach to maintaining common boundaries for the constituencies at Westminster and in the Scottish Parliament.
Such an approach will strengthen the integrity of the United Kingdom. In addition, there are benefits from the point of view of constituents, because common boundaries will make representation easier to access. All of us know from our own experience the surprising amount of confusion that often prevails in the minds of our constituents about how the various branches and levels of government interact and interrelate. I am often more clearly recognised by my constituents as a surrogate local councillor than as a Member of Parliament. I realised early in my career that, when people approach me with problems, delivering a mini penny lecture on the fact that housing allocation is not my responsibility as a Member of Parliament, or that I am not responsible for some other aspect of local government work, does not go down well.

Mr. Donald Gorrie: In the light of what he has said, will the Secretary of State make sure that local government ward boundaries are coterminous with the proposed parliamentary boundaries? Currently, they are not.

Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman raises a very different issue—local government reform. He is asking me to intervene and interfere with the work of the local government boundary commission in a way that I should be loth to do. If I did attempt to do as he asks, I suspect that I should quickly run foul of my legislative duties. I know that the hon. Gentleman enjoys pursuing that argument with the dogged persistence that is his trademark, and it may be that I shall have to sit and listen to a great deal on that subject at some point in the months ahead; however, today is not that day. I merely imported local government into my argument to illustrate that lack of clarity about function is common, as is lack of clarity about boundaries.

Dr. Liam Fox: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. James Wallace: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Dewar: I shall give way in a minute, first to the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, and then to the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), for the Liberal Democrats.


If there are coterminous boundaries, that will encourage Members of Parliament and Members of the Scottish Parliament to work together. In addition, it will mean that we have a rational structure, which is in the interests of all. Now, I give way, with pleasure, to the hon. Member for Woodspring.

Dr. Fox: May I take the Secretary of State back to point raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie)? I accept that it would be quite improper to interfere with the local government boundary commission. However, if the right hon. Gentleman's argument is not a practical point but, as he said, a point of principle, would he not have to agree that coterminosity in respect of local government is as desirable as coterminosity in respect of Westminster constituencies?

Mr. Dewar: No, the hon. Gentleman has, perhaps understandably, got my points out of order. I started with a point of principle, which was the integrity of the United Kingdom and the advantage of coterminous boundaries in that context. I should have though that that was one of the few points in our long argument on which the hon. Gentleman might have been inclined to agree with me. I then moved on to an important practical point about clarity in the system and the ability of Members of the Scottish Parliament and Members of Parliament to work together. There were two points, conjoined in the text of my speech but clearly distinct in their ordering and how they were being made.

Mr. Wallace: Does the Secretary of State agree with the Minister of State? On 12 May, the Minister of State said:
People are less concerned with maps and boundaries than they are with the quality of political contribution and of services. Yes, there is an issue, but we would do well to keep it in perspective."—[Official Report, 12 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 224.]
Is not the Secretary of State getting the matter a little out of perspective and adding to confusion in his announcements?

Mr. Dewar: No, I am arguing practical points about confusion, clarity and working arrangements which are relevant to the debate. If boundaries are being made an enormous sticking point and the issue is being blown out of proportion, I could—but I shall not—charge Liberal Democrat Members with doing so. We must consider the matter in proper proportion and in context, and it is worth pausing on it because it is important that we try to get it right, but it is not a breaking point in the passage of the Bill, as other hon. Members seem to think.

Sir Robert Smith: Why not?

Mr. Dewar: Because I do not believe in arranging matters to create barriers where no barriers need exist.

Sir Robert Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dewar: Very well, but I should have let the hon. Gentleman intervene on a more substantial point later.

Sir Robert Smith: The substantial point is that the Secretary of State was saying that the matter should not

be a great sticking point, but it is within his power to avoid its becoming a sticking point by accepting the Lords amendment, the contents of which his party signed up to when it signed the constitutional convention agreement.

Mr. Dewar: I shall come to that argument, and I do not dismiss it lightly. To give the hon. Gentleman a hint and to rehearse a point, the matter was not a sticking point for the Liberal Democrats when they gamely and effectively campaigned for a yes vote for a White Paper that encompassed the Government's position, including the point that we are making in asking for the rejection of the Lords amendments. I shall return to that point in a moment.
The practical point is that MPs and MSPs will be better placed to co-ordinate their constituency work and make sure that local interests are properly represented at Holyrood and Westminster. We want contacts between MSPs and MPs to be straightforward and their constituents to be in tune with, and aware of, the organisation and the way in which the system works. Our position would help that process.
By contrast—this is a simple point that I shall not elaborate—if we were to accept the Lords amendments, a Westminster MP would in future find that he had probably more than one MSP with whom to work and, if the boundaries were out of alignment, there would be a patchwork of overlapping boundaries, which would leave room for confusion.

Dr. Fox: It would be difficult for MSPs to have other Members roaming around their constituencies, but how does that differ from the proposals to have top-up MPs floating around the Westminster constituencies which were made in the report that Lord Jenkins published last week?

Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman is looking at me in a knowing way as though he has produced a knock-out punch. I know that that is a rare feeling for him, so I am sorry to have to spoil it for him. I am making two very different points. One is about overlapping boundaries for those who have a territorial responsibility. In this case, that means Westminster MPs and MSPs elected in the constituency section by first past the post. When the hon. Gentleman brings the Jenkins proposals into the debate, he is referring to a system that includes list members, which is very different. We are discussing the territorials, if I can use that somewhat dismissive term as a shorthand to explain the point.
Let me say to those on the Liberal Benches that the parliamentary boundary commission is already required to take account of local government boundaries. It may not have done so as completely as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) would like, but the commission is required to take account of local council boundaries as part of the statutory rules. That will be the position at the next review. I hope that we will therefore minimise the overlapping, even with local government boundaries, to which he pointed.
4 pm
The Government are committed to clause 81 and to undertaking a review of the number of Scottish Members of Parliament at Westminster. It is generally accepted that


we cannot justify the above-average representation that Scotland enjoys in the House of Commons. It is anticipated, and I accept, that such a review will lead to a reduction in the number of Scottish Members of Parliament, and correspondingly a reduction in the number of constituencies in Scotland. In the White Paper, we made it clear that the size of the Scottish Parliament would change to take account of changes at Westminster so as to maintain common boundaries.
I should reassure the House that the Government have thought long and hard about the implications for the Parliament of a reduction in its size. We do not believe that such a reduction will make the Parliament less able to carry out its key roles of scrutinising effectively the Scottish Administration's work and enacting legislation.
We are not, on any realistic assessment, contemplating cutting the membership of the Parliament in half, or by a third, or even by a quarter. The reduction would amount to no more than 20 per cent. of the total numbers of seats, on most projections. Even after the review, the Scottish Parliament will still have significantly more than 100 Members.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Does the Secretary of State agree that that is a dangerous path on which to embark? In the future, should the Government implement the findings of the Jenkins report, which foresees a 20 per cent. fall in the number of directly elected Members of Parliament. the Scottish Parliament would end up with only 48 directly elected MSPs.

Mr. Dewar: I know the hon. Gentleman. He is one of my favourite former bank managers. I am always amazed to think that he was once in charge of a branch of the Royal Bank of Scotland, where I bank, which makes that a matter of anxious interest to me.
I do not have a crystal ball. The House will remember that Lord Jenkins made it clear that any changes that might emerge from his proposals, which are representative proposals to be tested in a referendum, could not be implemented for at least eight years. Although I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has an interest in those matters, his contention is, to say the least, hypothetical.

Mr. Alex Salmond: The parliamentary boundary changes could not be implemented until the election after next, either. The Secretary of State cannot have it both ways. Is he saying that the reduction in constituency size—the reduction proposed by the Jenkins commission for Westminster—will automatically follow through for the Scottish Parliament? Will he answer the question whether that could mean a reduction in the number of directly elected constituency members to 50 or so if the Jenkins recommendations were implemented?

Mr. Dewar: That is some way—and a referendum—away. There is plenty of time to consider those matters. We must start with a reasonably stable basis. We suggested—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) laughs, but we are speaking about practical politics. Let us assume for a moment that

we reduce, as we will, the number of Scottish constituencies, so that Scotland is treated in exactly the same way as the rest of the United Kingdom in respect of the boundary commission criteria, and let us assume that there is a variation. There is no reason for thinking that that would result in a Scottish Parliament that was unable to carry out its duties properly and consistently.
If the hon. Gentleman likes to think about it, let me point out that we have 72 Scottish Members of Parliament at Westminster. That increase above the United Kingdom average is justified because Scottish Members have a large number of responsibilities deriving from the distinct and different Scottish legislation, which justifies that buttressed number. I think that we are all familiar with that argument. All that additional work will go to the Scottish Parliament. On that basis, it seems right that we should have—to use a term from another area—a "level playing field" between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom in terms of the boundary commission's considerations at the next boundary review.
My point is that, even on that basis, we shall have 129 Members of Parliament in Scotland. That will be a permanent feature, irrespective of what happens at other levels of government, if the other place has its way. Those 129 Members of Parliament will do the additional work—that which is over and above the normal work of Members of Parliament in the House of Commons—but will have none of the other responsibilities that lie with Members of the House of Commons in areas such as the economy, foreign affairs, level playing field legislation, company legislation, financial services regulation and so on.
Those 129 Members of Parliament will have a very much narrower remit than do the present 72 Scottish Members of Parliament in the House of Commons. If the current representation in the House of Commons is satisfactory, I do not see why it should suddenly be anathema to have in the Scottish Parliament—which will have a very much narrower remit—almost 50 per cent. more Members. Why should that figure be written into legislation and never altered? That seems to me to be a highly illogical view, and I recommend that argument to the House.
I understand entirely the point made by the Liberal Democrats. The hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland—I have discussed the matter with him on more than one occasion —takes the view that an agreement was reached in the constitutional convention and should be honoured. That is an understandable point of view. The hon. and learned Gentleman also knows—I rehearsed this argument a minute or two ago—that, subsequent to that agreement, a White Paper was published. If he looks at paragraph 8.7 of the White Paper—I am sure that he is very familiar with it; I hardly need to quote it—he will see that it clearly states:
The integrity of the UK will be strengthened by common UK and Scottish Parliament boundaries.
The rest of the paragraph argues that case. I think that the word "may", which is used in the last sentence, has misled some people. However, according to any reasonable


interpretation of the text, it will be seen that the point about coterminous boundaries is well made and well founded. The last sentence states:
Any changes in Westminster constituencies will result in changes to Scottish Parliamentary constituencies; and may also lead to consequential adjustments to the size of the Scottish Parliament so as to maintain the present balance between constituency and additional Member seats.
The "may" refers to a possible variation in the corrective mechanism: the regional or top-up seats—however the House wishes to describe them.
The White Paper makes the clear point that coterminous boundaries are part of the scheme. While I do not necessarily wish to put it in terms of choice, if I were asked to choose, I would feel that the White Paper—which is of a later date, for which we all campaigned and which has been endorsed by the votes of the people—is the benchmark against which to measure those facts.
I do not wish to overdo those arguments, but I believe that there are no absolutes in such matters. None of us has an absolute view about the right size of a Parliament. We have no such idea about the House of Commons. This place comprises 659 Members, and many people think that there should be fewer Members. I do not suppose for a moment that there is unanimity on that point or on how much smaller Parliament should be.
The hon. and learned Gentleman will remind me—if he does not, I shall remind myself —that he thought at one time that the absolute right size of the Scottish Parliament was 144 Members. A special commission, chaired by Joyce McMillan, was established at the constitutional convention to examine this and related issues. It suggested that the Scottish Parliament should comprise 112 Members: 73 first past the post, plus 39 in the top-up. A compromise emerged at that point of 129 Members, and that is the starting point for the new Parliament. As I say, on top of that we have adopted the point that was made in the White Paper, which means that 129 is not just the starting point but is conditional upon the important point made in the White Paper about coterminous boundaries.

Mr. Salmond: I think that the Secretary of State is misinterpreting the Lords amendment. The purpose of the amendment is to allow the Scottish Parliament its own boundary commission and set its size on its own priorities, not to set, fixed in time, 129 as an absolute number. Can the right hon. Gentleman give any example anywhere in the world of a Parliament that judges its complexion and the numbers that should be in it on the basis of another Parliament's representations?

Mr. Dewar: I know that we have a fundamental disagreement because the hon. Gentleman naturally does not believe that a devolution settlement is a stable settlement or one that in itself is worth while. I understand that. I say naturally because, as a political point of view, he will always criticise and push for more, and ultimately wants to drive on to an entirely different political settlement. I do not think that he will carry Scotland on that, but I appreciate that that viewpoint is his.
My viewpoint is that we are looking for a new and strong voice for Scotland within the United Kingdom. We are handing over an unprecedented number of domestic areas of policy to a directly elected Scottish Parliament,

where the writ of that Parliament will run unchallenged. We have retained—I think on a logical division—certain areas, which remain on a United Kingdom basis. The constitution and the boundary commission are preserved and fall into this category. That is the difference between the hon. Gentleman and myself. I accept that. I hold to the view that what we propose is sensible. That is how the White Paper was drafted and that is, in my view, how the Bill should go on to the statute book.
I do not think that this is something on which I shall be able to persuade the hon. Gentleman. I can assure him that, on this point, he will not be able to persuade me. We shall have to push on, on that basis, and agree to disagree, which is becoming something of a habit of a lifetime between us.

Mr. John Bercow: How does the Secretary of State believe that reducing the size of the Scottish Parliament in the way that he suggests will help that Parliament to act as a bulwark against those in the Scottish Nationalist party who would like to exploit the difficulties of devolution as a justification for moves towards independence?

Mr. Dewar: I said earlier and I say again that those are matters of judgment. My judgment is that there is genuine virtue—I think that it is a matter of principle—in having coterminous boundaries. It may be, although I would be surprised, that the hon. Gentleman disagrees with that. Will we satisfy the people of Scotland if we make a success of the Parliament that they endorsed with their vote? We shall have to produce the right positive policies. We shall have to attack the problems of unemployment, raise education standards and build on the excellence of the health service in Scotland. I think that we shall have to argue, as I believe that we can successfully argue, that a continuing connection with the United Kingdom, with our main market in economic terms, with an area with which we have many traditional ties, where we have intermarried and intermingled, where we have had challenges, disappointments and triumphs over 300 years, makes sense. However, that is an argument for the future. No doubt, it will be maintained over quite a lengthy period.
The hon. Gentleman may think that the argument will turn on the issue of the number of Members, but I think that he is mistaken. I believe that there is no necessary correlation between the size of the Parliament and its efficiency. It could be argued, certainly on the extreme, that if there were a larger and larger number of Members, efficiency would be more and more sacrificed. That is a matter for debate. We start from the point of view of principle
—

Mr. Bercow: I concede the logic

Mr. Dewar: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman's views are and 1 do not think that I want to know. Let us say that there is considerable concern in the House about the size of the House. A local government example is that, in most parts of the country—certainly the part of it that I know well—there are many who would argue, although no doubt others would disagree, that we should reduce the number of councillors. Consider, for example, what is being done in the new form of London government, so those things are all matters on which hon. Members


would argue, but I certainly protest against the argument that the more we have, the more efficient we are and the more beautiful the organisation. I do not for a moment imagine, although the hon. Gentleman may not be interested in beauty, that he would disagree with that proposition.
I shall hurry on because I am being unfair to the House and many hon. Members will want to speak.
4.15 pm
The amendments create, or try to create, a role for the parliamentary boundary commission for Scotland to undertake a separate review of the parliamentary constituencies in Scotland. As the House will know, the boundary commission is required to produce a report by June 2005. It is far from clear why hon. Members feel it necessary for such a report to be available so soon. It would mean that the boundary commission would be forced to conduct a separate review of the Scottish parliamentary constituencies at the same time as it was finalising its review of the Scottish seats at Westminster. That would be an onerous burden to impose on the commission and not one that would be necessary.
If, however, we leave that to one side, one difficulty with the detailed amendments is that they propose that the report of the parliamentary boundary commission should be submitted to the Scottish Executive for subsequent approval by the Scottish Parliament. That is a reasonable proposition if hon. Members take the view that this should be not a reserved, but a devolved matter. I do not take that view. It follows from that that the attempt to reverse that decision by means of this group of amendments is not one that I am prepared to support.
Schedule 5 makes it clear that elections to the Scottish Parliament, being a fundamental part of the constitution in the United Kingdom, are reserved. To be consistent with that approach, any review of the Scottish parliamentary constituencies should be a matter for the Secretary of State and for this Parliament. To split in the way that is suggested is not necessary or desirable.
The amendments' approach is not acceptable to the Government and is not compatible with the provisions in the White Paper. Therefore, we believe that the House should disagree with the Lords in their amendment. However, I stress that the amendments pay insufficient attention to the importance of maintaining common constituency links between Westminster and Holyrood. Again, the Government believe—I just state it briefly—that the maintenance of those links is important.
I have made it clear that we are prepared, obviously, and have thought long and hard about those matters. It is clear that, for a variety of reasons, it will be some time before there is a change. No doubt, there will be possibilities to revisit the arguments if we are convinced by experience that 129 MSPs are essential and that any reduction in numbers would be a democratic disaster. If hon. Members examine that proposition, they will see that it is unlikely to be tenable. I believe that experience will not teach us that lesson. If it does, because those changes—or any changes consequent on Westminster changes—will not come in for some years, that fact will no doubt become apparent and can be taken into account.
We shall have the opportunity to see how the Scottish Parliament works in practice before any changes are made to it.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Before my right hon. Friend leaves this point, I should like to make a point about paragraph 8.7. Although it clearly states:
Responsibility for Scottish Parliamentary electoral arrangements… will be reserved matters",
it goes on to say that it will be a matter for the UK Parliament
subject to consultation with the Scottish Parliament.
Will he confirm that there is no change in that position?

Mr. Dewar: It would be odd of me, if, having rested heavily on paragraph 8.7 of the White Paper, I then announced a retreat from what it says. Of course there will be consultation. The point that is made by the amendments and by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan is that there should be not consultation, but a transfer of power. In the context of the whole shape of the devolution package, that would not be sensible, wise or compatible with what we have been doing over the long periods of consultation and debate.
I say again that, over the next few years, we shall have experience of the Scottish Parliament in operation and can then assess how dependent it is on having 129 MSPs for its success. I suspect that that will not be a determining factor. What I believe will be the success of the Parliament will depend on its ability to deliver, to respond to Scottish public opinion and to involve Scottish public opinion in its affairs.

Dr. Fox: It does not seem long since we last debated the Bill. The difference is that now we have quite a different Bill before us. One point on which I agree with the Secretary of State is that many of the changes are desirable and should be welcomed.
I pay tribute to what are affectionately called the MacKay twins—Lord MacKay of Ardbrecknish and Lord Mackay of Drumadoon—who did a great deal of work in the other place. They were able to reach agreement with Ministers on many aspects, all of which improve the Bill that left this House. However, there is a point to be made: the Government introduced 180 groups of amendments to their flagship Bill in a House that they claim does not have proper democratic legitimacy and needs to be changed.

Mr. Swayne: Did not many of the Government amendments in the other place bear a striking resemblance to amendments originally suggested by the twins to whom my hon. Friend referred?

Dr. Fox: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I do not want to be ungracious at the outset of our debate. I am happy when the Government find humility and recognise when they are wrong. We will always welcome that. Indeed, I hope that they will do so again today. There has been a tight time scale for Opposition parties, with major amendments to Third Reading being tabled by the Government on Monday night, thereby giving us little time to assess their full impact. We said a long time ago that the time management of the Bill left something to be desired.


The Secretary of State said on Second Reading, and it is worth reminding the House—[Interruption.] I know that the right hon. Gentleman finds it difficult to see and listen at the same time. His original approach was that the Bill would be framed against the background of a worst case scenario, in particular in a way that would not provide the nationalists and separatists with a wedge to drive between Edinburgh and Westminster. We have also taken that approach through the passage of the Bill; it has been a consistent theme. However, what the Secretary of State is defending today will have precisely the opposite effect to his stated intent. The first thing that will be required to make the Scottish Parliament work properly is stability, but what is guaranteed by what he is defending is instability.
We already know what changes will come about as a result of other parts of the Bill. We know that the number of Scottish Members of Parliament will be reduced from 72 to about 58, if we have the same size electorates that we have for the remainder of the United Kingdom. That is a generally accepted point in the debate. That will reduce the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament by 14 for directly elected seats and eight for top-up. It is not a good basis on which to start a Parliament—knowing that, very soon afterwards, possibly within its first term and certainly within its second, there will be a major redistribution. With the best will in the world, there will be division among Members. We know that from our experience in the House when there is a boundary review. People naturally want to defend their constituencies and continue to look after the interests of their constituents. It is not a proper basis for stability.
I do not accept the Secretary of State's argument—really just an assertion—that the matter should be left to his judgment and that we should accept that. I remember that, on Second Reading, we were told that only by accepting the Secretary of State's judgment could we stop a resurgence of Scottish nationalism. Since then, the Scottish National party, much to my deep upset, has been doing rather well; it is the Labour party which has been doing badly in Scotland.

The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): What about the Conservative party?

Dr. Fox: I can tell the hon. Gentleman about my party's success. In local government by-elections in Scotland, the Labour party has dropped the most votes, while the other three parties have gained, especially since the devolution referendum.

Mr. Dewar: By what percentage?

Dr. Fox: What matters most to the Secretary of State is by how much our vote has risen, rather than the fact that his party's vote has dropped. That says a great deal about a party that was pinning all its hopes on delivering the right hon. Gentleman's devolution package.
Far more important, the Secretary of State said that only by producing this particular package could we defend the Union. However, it seems now that the Union is more imperilled than at any time in our recent history. The Secretary of State's judgment therefore means nothing to Opposition Members.
I do not want to go into the breach of faith perceived by the Liberal Democrats, as it was not something to which the Conservative party was a party. However, if the Secretary of State was willing to amend some parts of the Bill—which was based on the White Paper—in the other place, why is he unwilling to amend other parts of it? Why should some parts be sacrosanct while others are not? A logical case has not been made to support that position, but then neither has a logical case been made to support any of the Secretary of State's other comments in this debate.
The most important point is that, if the Scottish Parliament is to fund arrangements through the Scottish block, surely it makes sense for the Scottish Parliament itself to decide on its priorities. It seems perfectly logical for the Scottish Parliament to want to reduce the number of those sitting in the Parliament so that it can spend more on something else. Conversely, if the Scottish Parliament decides that it wants to spend more money on the Scottish Parliament, why should it not have a chance to do so? It seems very strange to be unwilling to devolve any authority on the matter.
It would seem to make perfect sense for the Conservative party—and other parties, too—to campaign on reducing the costs of the Scottish Parliament, and therefore on being able to spend more of the Scottish block on other priorities. That is a matter of legitimate political debate in Scotland, and it would be stifled by the Secretary of State's proposals.
Today, we are witnessing another misjudgment by the Government, who are simply defending the stubbornness of the Secretary of State, or perhaps of those in Downing street. Regardless, the downside of such stubbornness will be unnecessary division and instability in the Scottish Parliament at a time when it most needs stability. That cannot be to the advantage of the United Kingdom, this Parliament or the Scottish Parliament, and it can act only in favour of those who want a wedge to be driven between Edinburgh and this place. It can help only the separatists. Even at this late stage, I hope that the Government will reconsider.

Mr. Wallace: It is not surprising that I disagree with the Secretary of State in disagreeing with the Lords amendments. The amendments are similar to those that I moved in the House in Committee and on Report, and were moved by my noble Friends in another place, where they were passed.
It should be remembered that, both in Committee and on Report, when I moved those similar amendments, the mood music from the Treasury Bench was relatively sweet. The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution said that the Government were listening and would consider the arguments being made. On Report, he said that I had
made a strong and very reasoned case to retain the size of the Scottish Parliament at 129 members",
and confirmed that
the Government would reflect carefully on the issues that he raised.
There was perhaps an expectation in another place that things might be changed. Therefore, there was profound disappointment when, in another place, albeit with not


much conviction, Lord Sewel sought to defend the position. I wondered whether there was perhaps some confusion about what the Minister had said. He said:
We are still considering the matter, and we hope to reach a conclusion by the time that the Bill goes to another place."—[Official Report, 12 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 223-34.]
But Ministers dug in their heels.
The suspicion—on which press speculation has dwelt—is that the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution and the Scottish Office were very much persuaded by the arguments made in this place to retain the size of the Parliament at 129, but that No. 10 Downing street —the Prime Minister himself—has been the blocking factor.
The Scottish Constitutional Convention negotiations—which the Secretary of State mentioned—that reached the compromise figure of 129 were quite fraught. When the 129 figure was reached, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie)—who was not then an hon. Member—sent me a fax which almost burnt my fax machine, as he thought that we should have stood out for 145. I say that to underline that it was not an easy negotiation. It was not simply an agreement between two parties, but reflected a broad base of Scottish civic opinion. The agreement stated:
the system the Convention has devised is the outcome of long and detailed discussions, and is underpinned by fundamental principles including proportionality and the opportunity for equal representation. It should not be easily challenged or changed without careful and democratic scrutiny.
Regrettably, the Government are departing from that today.
The Secretary of State argued the case on the basis of the White Paper, although, as the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said, on other matters the Government are clearly prepared to move away from it. In fact, we shall be debating a significant change in the manner in which judges can be dismissed—a change with which we agree.
4.30 pm
In other cases, the Secretary of State has moved away from the convention agreement. For example, we are to have a system of reserved powers rather than detailed devolved powers. We welcome that as it was something of which we tried to persuade the Labour party in the Scottish Constitutional Convention.
I do not remember many speeches by the Secretary of State during the referendum campaign in which he referred to paragraph 8.7 of the White Paper. Nevertheless, he rests his case on that and it seems to be one of his best points. However, in earlier debates, the Government suggested that they might be prepared to negotiate, so they cannot pin too much of their argument to the White Paper.
We wish to retain larger numbers of MSPs because all parties agree—the Secretary of State rightly paid tribute to the work of the consultative steering group, a constructive working group of which I am pleased to be a member—that the Scottish Parliament should work very much on a committee basis and that committees will have an important role to play. Those committees must have sufficient numbers to make them worth while.
The figure of 129 is important, as it delivers a degree of proportionality that allows for a fair representation of all sections of Scottish political opinion in the Scottish Parliament. I know that the Secretary of State—I have had this discussion with him many times —believes that inserting the ratio of 73 to 56 in the Bill will mean that, when the Parliament is downsized, it will maintain the same degree of proportionality. However, I believe that, if there are fewer additional Members to correct, the level of correction must be lower; therefore, it will not be as proportional. I do not doubt the Secretary of State's good faith—he is just arithmetically wrong.
The Prime Minister's argument is based on the White Paper which talks about the need for coterminous boundaries. The Secretary of State suggested that not having coterminous boundaries might lead to confusion. That argument continued to be peddled on Report, and the Minister addressed it when he said:
I do not think that the electorate are as confused as some hon. Members think. Because hon. Members are concerned about boundaries, we assume that the electors are also concerned. However, electors in my constituency are a very sharp, bright bunch-which they demonstrate at every election, by voting in a very superior way."—[Official Report, 12 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 224.]
I am sure that, even with non-coterminous boundaries, they would be equally sharp. The Minister put the argument into some perspective on Report.
Are the Government and the Secretary of State trying to persuade the House that the integrity of the Union depends on whether the boundary for Edinburgh, South runs up Warrender Park road or Marchmont road? If the Union is in such a perilous state that one road may make a difference, heaven help us. I think that the opposite is the case. If, in eight years' time, it is seen to be at the hand of Westminster that the number of MSPs is being cut, that could give rise to tensions between Westminster and Holyrood and undermine the Union. On that particular argument, the Government have got it wrong.
The agenda in relation to the size of the Parliament may be that the Prime Minister wants a reduced Parliament. We are always brought back to the obstinacy of a Prime Minister who legislates for devolution and talks about devolution, but does not seem to understand it, so today the Secretary of State has to come here and be his master's voice. This matter is important for the future of the Scottish Parliament. If the Labour party makes any agreement in the Scottish Parliament, will it have to be countersigned by Downing street in order to be delivered or will we be able to trust the Government, as we thought that we could when they agreed the constitutional convention?
Contrast that with my party, which already has devolution in its federal structure. I have made it clear to my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) that, regardless of agreements to extend the remit of Cabinet Committees or anything else that may happen at Westminster, the Scottish Liberal Democrats are sovereign on matters that are the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. He accepts that.

Dr. Fox: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that de-linkage does not necessarily mean that the numbers will be set in stone? The Scottish Parliament could change the numbers if it felt that that was appropriate. That is surely the best mechanism for


defusing any potential tension between Edinburgh and here, which is what I thought that we were doing in removing what we called the wedge.

Mr. Wallace: In an effort to get some agreement, we have been willing to say that 129 was not sacrosanct, but, unfortunately, the Prime Minister has not been willing to show any sign of compromise. Last Saturday, my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil made a proposal, which I suggested to the Prime Minister, that when the boundary commission reviews Westminster boundaries, the electoral commission recommended by the Jenkins commission and the Neill committee—or a Scottish sub-committee of it—should examine the workings of the Scottish Parliament and consider how many Members were needed for its committee structure to work effectively, taking into account the relative proportionality on which the first elections would be fought and the geography of Scotland so that we did not have vast constituencies. The point about what might happen under the Jenkins proposals, which would leave only 48 first-past-the-post or alternative vote seats, is relevant. The commission should recommend the smallest number of Members that could deliver an effective Parliament, having regard to all those points.
That compromise proposal shows that we have the issue in perspective and are not tied to the figure of 129. The proposal still lies on the table. If the other place insists on its amendment—I shall urge my noble Friends to do so—and the Government have to come up with a compromise, the suggestion will still be there.
Lord Sewel said in another place that, some years down the line, perhaps the Scottish Parliament could say to Westminster that it needed greater numbers. I am sure that Westminster would think seriously about that, but if the measure were set in statute, primary legislation would be needed. All of us, from those who have been here as long as the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) to those as recently arrived as the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Alexander), have heard the Government say at some point that their timetable does not allow time for a particular measure. If this provision were taken out of the Bill, Westminster would at some stage be obliged to address the issue and legislate on it without any preconditions. Our proposal was put forward in the spirit of trying to find a compromise. It remains on the table.
That is why I say that we have the issue in perspective. Surely the Secretary of State did not expect us not to support a yes campaign in the referendum because we disagreed with one paragraph of the White Paper. On Second Reading, the Government said that they were willing to listen constructively to amendments and amend the Bill accordingly. It is disappointing that they have not accepted our arguments. The House may have to debate the issue again before the Bill receives Royal Assent.

Mr. John McAllion: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State began the debate by warning everyone that the end was nigh. 1 hope that that apocalyptic warning will not apply to me, too, because I cannot join my right hon. Friend tonight in voting down the Lords amendment.
I agree with my right hon. Friend that the size of the Parliament is not necessarily the most important issue at stake. Voters tend to favour fewer politicians rather than

more if they are given the choice. However, the manner in which we arrive at the size of the Parliament is fundamental. My right hon. Friend did not address the fundamental point — which has been raised by the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace)—that the figure of 129 was not plucked out of the air. It was agreed inside the Scottish Constitutional Convention.
Not only the figure but any future change to the figure was agreed inside the Scottish Constitutional Convention. As members of the convention, the Labour party agreed that any future reduction in the size of the Scottish Parliament would be carried out by a separate boundary commission for Scotland and on the advice of the Scottish Parliament. That was in the agreement. We gave our word that, were we ever to form the Government of the United Kingdom, we would implement that agreement. We are certainly not doing that here and now by opposing the amendment.
There was more than just cross-party agreement. The only political parties that were inside the convention were us, the Liberal Democrats, the Greens and the Communists—or the Democratic Left, or whatever they called themselves at that time—but many other people took part. The trade unions—an essential part of our party—were separately represented, to give their agreement to any future change. The Churches and women's organisations were involved, as were representatives of the ethnic minorities. What we now call Scottish civil society was inside the Scottish Constitutional Convention. We agreed with them all about changing the size of the Scottish Parliament in the future. We should not break our word to Scottish civil society, or to the other political parties inside the convention, as lightly as we appear to be doing tonight.
My right hon. Friend referred to paragraph 87 of the White Paper. I must say, in all honesty, that I was not aware of paragraph 87. I suspect that a lot of people in Scotland were not aware of it. Perhaps I would not have welcomed the White Paper as warmly as I did when it was announced in the House had I known that that paragraph existed. It is a relatively obscure paragraph in the White Paper, and my right hon. Friend was at least honest enough to say that it does not actually say in the White Paper that the size of the Parliament will be changed —it says that it "may" be changed. Of course, that is a favourite parliamentary word for putting things off and not confronting them at the time.
My right hon. Friend reassured my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) that any future reduction in the size of the Scottish Parliament would be subject to consultation with the Scottish Parliament. What happens if the Scottish Parliament says no? What happens if the Scottish Parliament says, "We do not want the size of the Parliament reduced—we want to retain 129 Members"? If Westminster consults and the Scottish Parliament says no, what does Westminster do then? Will it send the tanks up to surround Holyrood to demand that 20 Members get out, or else? We are getting ourselves into a ridiculous situation.
I, too, campaigned for a yes, yes vote in the referendum. My right hon. Friend may well remember that, along with a certain Mr. Phil Gallie—late of this House—I acted as the warm-up act for a big Scottish Television programme involving my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the leaders of the Liberal


Democrats and the Scottish National party taking on the Tories, my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and the vice-chairman of Rangers. It was a tremendous debate with hundreds of members of the public present. Nobody referred to any possibility that the size of the Parliament might be reduced in future.
I never came across a single incident during the campaign in which that issue was shown the light of day. No one was aware during the referendum campaign that there was the potential for the Scottish Parliament to be reduced in size by Act of the Westminster Parliament. We must be honest and state that that is the case, and not try to hide behind the referendum result as if it were an endorsement of the Westminster Parliament being able to reduce the size of the Scottish Parliament. It certainly was not, and I know that my right hon. Friend would not pretend that that issue had anything to do with the result of 11 September.

Dr. Lynda Clark: I may be hallucinating, but my recollection is that it was headline news in some of the Scottish papers that such a reduction might be a consequence of the White Paper. Perhaps my hon. Friend did not read the papers at that time.

Mr. McAllion: I certainly do not read the same papers as my hon. and learned Friend does, and I did not see that reference. I am making a basic point which none of my right hon. or hon. Friends could deny: the Scottish people who voted yes, yes on 11 September did not do so on the basis that they wanted to see the size of the Scottish Parliament reduced by the Westminster Parliament. Anyone who argues that they did is not arguing in the real world.
I believe that the Westminster Parliament should not be imposing change on Scotland by giving effect to the doctrine of Westminster sovereignty or supremacy. Devolution in the form proposed inside the Scottish Constitutional Convention is opposed to the doctrine of Westminster sovereignty. My hon. Friends and I signed the foundation document for that convention, the Claim of Right for Scotland, which asserted the sovereignty of the Scottish people, setting that against the concept of parliamentary sovereignty, which this Parliament favours. We all signed up to it and stood by it. Having said that we think that the Scottish people are sovereign, we should not allow the Westminster Parliament to use its sovereignty to impose a change in the Scottish Parliament without any reference to the Scottish people or their Parliament.
What will be the response of my hon. Friends if the Scottish Parliament says no? What will be the response of the United Kingdom Cabinet if Scotland says that it does not want its Parliament to be reduced in size? Will we overrule Scotland's objections or will we seek to impose Westminster's will on Scotland?
4.45 pm
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State says that constitutional matters are a reserved area and therefore outwith the remit of the Scottish Parliament. The logic of that position is to say that that Parliament, like local government in Scotland, is a creature of statute —that it is

what Westminster says it is and is not what Westminster says it is not. Again, I do not remember any Labour politician arguing that in Scotland in the past 10 years. They are arguing it here tonight, but they have not done so before and it is not an argument by which we should stand.
My hon. Friends understand that Westminster sovereignty does not in any case apply in the real world. Suppose that the Scottish Parliament decided to hold a referendum on independence and found the money within its budget. Even though that is a reserved matter, so it would not constitutionally be allowed to do so, how would anyone stop it? It cannot be stopped, so in reality it will be in sovereign control of its own affairs. The sooner we recognise that and stop trying to impose Westminster's will on the Scottish Parliament, the better we will get on with that Parliament.

Dr. Clark: I have been following my hon. Friend's tortuous logic, and it occurs to me that he would presumably say that the Scottish Parliament could take on defence or foreign affairs on its own say-so. Would that be correct according to his logic?

Mr. McAllion: I think that it is the position of the Labour party. If the Scottish people ever elected a sufficient majority of Scottish National party members to a Scottish Parliament, the SNP would hold a referendum and, if the people then said yes to independence, Westminster could do nothing about it. That is a reality and everyone accepts it, even the Conservatives. It may be tortuous logic to my hon. and learned Friend, but it certainly is not to the people of Scotland.
We are also told that it is important that we match the constituencies of Westminster Members of Parliament with those of Members of the Scottish Parliament. Why? The European constituencies do not match and nor do the local government constituencies—there are regular changes in their sizes. Also, the list MSPs have nothing to do with the Westminster constituencies, so why is it only the directly elected Members of the Scottish Parliament who have to be linked to those constituencies? The elections will be held in different years and will involve different individuals. The candidates who stand in the two elections will be different, so I do not understand why the constituencies cannot be different. That does not present any problems for me.
We are also told that the linkage between the size of the Scottish Parliament and the size of Scottish seats at Westminster will strengthen the Union because of the common boundaries. I think that it will have the opposite effect. It gives the impression that the Westminster Parliament is interfering in Scottish affairs—that it will bully Scotland into changes that it does not want. That will give succour to those people who want to present Westminster as constantly interfering with Scotland and who want the Westminster Parliament out of Scottish affairs altogether.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State says that the minds of the voters are confused. They will not be confused if Westminster forces a change in the Scottish Parliament that it does not want: the message will be clear, and it will be the wrong message—for the Labour party in particular.
Finally, we are talking not merely about a 20 per cent. reduction as a result of the changes that the Government are trying to force through tonight, but about a further


20 per cent. reduction that will take place thereafter because of the Jenkins proposals, which will also affect Scotland. The size of the Scottish Parliament will be constantly changing, and that is bound to lead to tensions between Members of the Scottish Parliament. I cannot think of any politician who would voluntarily fall on his sword because the number of seats was being reduced. There will be bitter fights not only between sitting Members of the Scottish Parliament who want to hold on to their seats, but between those wanting to be on the list or to be higher on the list. There will be constant crises and revolutions in the parties.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will not that bitterness start on the first day of the Parliament? My hon. Friend knows well my attitude to the whole scheme, but it is unfair on individuals that they will have to start with this recipe for bitterness.

Mr. McAllion: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. No one knows exactly how the number of constituencies will be reduced, but we can expect Glasgow and Edinburgh to lose seats. All the Members of the Scottish Parliament who are elected to represent constituencies in those cities will know that they will have to fight one another to hold on to their seats.
I know that some people will be retiring—such as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is to lead the Labour party in the Scottish Parliament—but other candidates will be young. They will have a lifetime in politics ahead of them and will not want to lose their seats within four or eight years of being elected to the Scottish Parliament.

Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend's point, which he makes with passion, is perhaps at the root of the argument. As a Member representing an Edinburgh seat, I believe that one cannot expect a job for life in Westminster or in the Scottish Parliament.

Mr. Wallace: A Rifkind gain.

Dr. Clark: Perhaps at some other time.
It is important that democratic change is possible. We cannot set up the Parliament with the argument that it will be terribly sad if—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. and learned Lady will remember on whom she is intervening.

Dr. Clark: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I got carried away.

Mr. McAllion: My hon. and learned Friend is reasonably new to parliamentary politics. Of course none of us can expect to have a seat for life, but most of us will try to have a seat for life. If she looks around her, she will see an awful lot of hon. Members who have been here a long time and intend to stay for a long time—they will fight to the death to retain their right to be the Member of Parliament for whatever constituency they come from.
We know from experience that the panel system, which may have sounded like a good idea on paper, has led to bitter recriminations not only within the Labour party—

although perhaps particularly the Labour party—but within other parties. There is ill feeling and bitterness, dividing party member from party member. The Government's proposals are a recipe for future bitterness in all the political parties.
I object to the fact that the measure is being imposed through Westminster sovereignty. If 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament say no, what will happen to the Government's proposals? Will Westminster assert its right, because the constitution is a reserved matter, to force the change down the Scottish Parliament's throat? I certainly would not support that, and I doubt whether many people in Scotland would do so.

Dr. Fox: It has been obvious in the debate that both those who welcome devolution with open arms and those who are sceptical about it think that the Government's proposals are bad. Will the hon. Gentleman speculate on why his party leadership is clinging to the proposals so desperately?

Mr. McAllion: I would rather speculate on why the hon. Gentleman, who is very sceptical about devolution, thinks that the proposals are bad. He defeats his own argument.
I am talking about a matter of principle. Some people believe in principle that the Scottish Parliament should be subservient to Westminster; they believe that authority, supremacy and sovereignty rightly rest in Westminster. Those people are entitled to believe that, but I am not one of them. I passionately believe that the idea behind devolution is that sovereignty should be shared between the different democratic institutions in the United Kingdom.
That sharing of sovereignty means that the Scottish Parliament and the boundary commission should decide on future changes in constituency sizes. Indeed, I am not convinced that they will not reduce the size of constituencies anyway, and I would love the number of Westminster Members of Parliament to be drastically reduced. As hon. Members know well, ordinary Back Benchers get to speak only once or twice a year, or perhaps every three months—unless the debate is about an issue such as Scottish devolution, on which no one else wants to speak. There are too many Members of Parliament. The House of Commons could easily do its work with about 200 or 300 Members, although that is another argument, and I am well behind with my hon. Friends already.
I appeal to my right hon. and hon. Friends: if they persist with this course of action, they will only bring this Parliament into conflict with the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish people. That is in no one's interest, least of all the Labour party's. We should not be trying to push through a measure that will have that effect.

Mr. Salmond: In his usual engaging way, the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) said that the public would probably agree with him in preferring a Parliament with fewer Members. I suspect that the popularity or otherwise of such a move would depend on which ones we got rid of.
Those on both sides of the argument have asserted that the case to which they are opposed would jeopardise the essential integrity of the United Kingdom. I feel as though


I have to act as an umpire and decide which is the true Unionist case. If I am to act in that capacity, I will have to blow for no side. Neither argument will determine the fate of the United Kingdom, which I believe is already determined.
Neither argument will save the United Kingdom, so let us consider them both on their merits. The Secretary of State said that he did not think that the integrity of the United Kingdom would turn on numbers in the Scottish Parliament, so why is there such fierce resistance to what is, remarkably for the House of Lords, a reasonable amendment? I have been a Member of Parliament for more than 10 years, and I certainly would not have to take my shoes off to count the number of reasonable amendments that I have seen from the House of Lords. Perhaps this commonsense amendment should be considered according to commonsense criteria.
It was suggested that the Parliament's efficiency might be improved if the number of Members were reduced, but proportionality would certainly be jeopardised. When the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) argued that proportionality would be compromised by reducing the number of Members, I saw some Labour mathematicians shaking their heads, but it is true that, the lower the number, the more difficult it is to use a top-up to bring about a proportionate parliament. Even the figure of 129 does not guarantee a proportionate Parliament, although it guarantees one that is more proportionate than under first past the post.
The Minister's expression seems to offer an endorsement of what I am saying. The lower the number, the more difficult it is to get proportionality. If proportionality is a key argument behind the figure of 129, it should be a key argument not for a static position but for having no fewer than 129 Members.
The Secretary of State told us that he thought that coterminosity—I think—was crucial, and that it was a point of principle, connecting the Westminster and Scottish Parliaments; but that is not in the Bill. There are separate Members for Orkney and for Shetland in the Bill, but there is only one hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland in the House of Commons: more than enough, some of his colleagues might say. There is no coterminosity now.
It has already been mentioned that European and local government boundaries have often not been perfectly aligned with parliamentary boundaries, so the idea that people in Scotland will be fashing themselves about trying to work it all out and will be hopelessly confused if the Westminster and Scottish Parliament boundaries are not exactly parallel is absolutely farcical. People are entirely able to find their MSPs, their MEPs and their list MSPs in the new structure, without that being adduced as a serious argument in defence of an indefensible position.
I do not for a second believe that deciding whether to allow a separate boundary commission to determine the optimum number of Members for the Scottish Parliament would make the essential difference between an independent and an a devolved Parliament, but it is one criterion by which to judge the difference between a devolved Parliament and what is in effect a super-council. There are few, if any, examples of a legislative body—

which is the definition of a Parliament—anywhere in the world allowing another legislative body to set the number of members that that Parliament should have.
The idea that one can judge the appropriate number of MSPs in Edinburgh on the basis of the possible reduction in the number of Members of the Westminster Parliament to reflect the population balance of the United Kingdom, and the possible further reduction if the Jenkins commission has its way, is absolutely farcical. There is no argument for allowing other people, on other criteria and with other motivations, to set the appropriate number of Members for the Scottish Parliament.
5 pm
The debate is about not the integrity of the United Kingdom, but about a commonsense amendment that should be accepted. However, running through the debate is what the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan)—in a robust interview on Radio Scotland this morning —described as the control-freak tendency. Substantial suggestions have been made, partly sourced from the attitude of the Minister of State to the amendments at earlier stages, that the hon. Gentleman does not support the Government's position. The hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland has suggested that even the Scottish Office does not support the Government's position.
The control-freak tendency is affecting a number of issues at the moment. The Government appear to say, "Have a Welsh Assembly, as long as we can decide who might lead it. Have a mayor for London, as long as we can exclude one of the more popular contenders. Have devolution for BBC Scotland, as long as it is not allowed to have a Scottish six o'clock news. Have a Scottish Parliament, but Westminster will still retain the absolute right to determine the number of its members." The background to the debate is that the Government have suddenly realised that the consequences of the policies they have been pursuing are not as they intended. They are trying to draw back under centralised control some of the ability of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the London mayor and the BBC to respond to the implications of the Government's proposals. That is not a commonsense approach and it is much later than the Government think for the implications of their policies. They are defending the indefensible in rejecting a commonsense amendment from the Lords and it will not secure the fate of the United Kingdom. In fact, it will accelerate the strong suspicion in Scotland that centralised control from the Labour party should be rejected next May.

Mr. Dalyell: I understand that 129 separate offices are to be built for the Members of the Scottish Parliament. That takes us to 2001. If my calculations are right, the next elections will be in 2003, so some offices will receive only two years' use. Will not that be a matter for ribaldry and what will be the effect on the construction of the building?

Mr. Robert Syms: I shall make only a brief contribution. I listened carefully to the Secretary of State's arguments about coterminous boundaries, but they would have more force if we had 72 Members of this House and 72 Members elected on the first-past-the-post boundaries


for the Scottish Parliament, without a list. Accountability would be muddied by the list Members in a ward, especially if it had several Members from different political parties. That would cause tremendous confusion. The argument for coterminous boundaries for Westminster and the Scottish Parliament is marginal, given that the waters have already been muddied by the list system.
Boundaries have diverged in several instances. At the moment, Members of the European Parliament are elected for constituencies that include six or seven Westminster constituencies, but because the cycle of elections for the European Parliament and Westminster does not match, parliamentary boundary reviews have meant that Members of the European Parliament have represented constituencies with slightly different borders to the constituencies of those elected to this House. The world has not collapsed because that has happened. We have heard many examples of local government boundaries that are not coterminous and of councillors with wards that span more than one parliamentary constituency. The slightly bizarre proposals for London suggest that boroughs should be linked. In August, the Local Government Commission suggested splitting the City of London from Westminster, so that the City of London joined Tower Hamlets and Barking, and Westminster joined with western boroughs. There is substantial inconsistency in the Government's position. I would have more sympathy with the argument that the integrity and coterminosity of parliamentary boundaries are important if it were applied consistently across the Government's constitutional programme.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) made the significant point that, with any constitutional change, it is important to have stability and some sort of settlement. To start with a proposal involving a drop from 129 Members is a recipe for instability. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) that it will feed resentment that the institution has been designed for a certain number, right or wrong, but that the number will start to be reduced soon after it is set up. That resentment will be used by those who wish to break up the United Kingdom to fan the flames of disunity. If we are going to get it right, why not get it right from the beginning? Why set off with 129 and then reduce the number?
I do not wish to fan the flames of division in the United Kingdom, but my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring made a good point. We have to test the proposals against the worst case, not the best. This proposal will cause argument, disunity and difficulty, and I therefore support my hon. Friend.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Michael Clapham—I am sorry, Mr. Michael Connarty.

Mr. Michael Connarty: I take that as a compliment Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I think very highly of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) and the work that he has done for the miners. I should have thought that, since you and I spent some time together on a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association trip a while ago, you might recognise me.
Oddly, I found myself agreeing with the tenor of the remarks of the leader of the Scottish National party—that the Union and the future of devolution will not be affected

by anything that we do on this matter. When compared with what devolution is really about the question of how many Members there should be is a case of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
I was worried that the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) got so passionate. Is this really about numbers or only about the number of Liberal Democrats who might get in if there are 129 Members or more? Because of his past contributions, I had thought that it was usually quality rather than quantity that counted with the Liberal Democrats. This seemed to be a quantity argument.
I respect the principles of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion). I recognise nationalist principles when I hear them, and his was one of the best nationalist speeches that I have heard in this House. I do not think much of the quality of the ones that come from the official Scottish National party.

Mr. Wallace: In some respects, my argument was about numbers—not only the number of Liberal Democrats but of Labour, Conservative and Scottish National party Members. It is about the principle of proportionality. On the referendum campaign, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that selling the case for proportionality was one of the key things that allowed every part of Scotland to deliver a yes vote to the principle of devolution. Diluting that proportionality, more than anything that could be said about the White Paper, could undermine the good faith of those of us who fought for the yes campaign.

Mr. Connarty: I will deal with proportionality later because 1 do not think that the Bill is a closed door on that. The words of the Secretary of State—tomorrow's Hansard will confirm it—show that it is not a closed door. There is a mechanism for looking at the number of Scottish Members of this House and the number in the Scottish Parliament.
The important thing is that the people of Scotland do not want to focus on what the Parliament will be. The worry of people outside is that they regard us as debating what we see as our fiefdom, our little Chamber, our sets of offices and our fancy potato or upturned boat or whatever it is that Members will meet in. People are beginning to worry that we have forgotten why we set out on this trail so many years ago. It was to do something for the Scottish people, not for the politicians of Scotland.

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying about the people of Scotland being worried. Does he consider that 23,000 people in Falkirk, West might be extremely worried that their democratic will has been totally ignored by the small committee of new Labour that has decided to ignore the fact that, for 24 years, they have elected the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) to be their Member of Parliament? Those 23,000 people are now being told that the hon. Gentleman is not fit to be a Member of Parliament. Of course, I am not suggesting that he is not.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Is the hon. Lady trying to give me the kiss of death?

Mr. Connarty: I was about to say something similar. Until this evening, the star of my hon. Friend the Member


for Falkirk, West was buoyant, but I think it has just been shot out of the sky by that intervention. I am sure that the matter to which the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) refers will be resolved in the fulness of time and we shall discover whether the people of Falkirk, West want to choose their current Member of the UK Parliament or some other person. I leave it to them and I respect the electorate's wishes. I just hope that the people who turned out to vote for me—who number slightly more than 23,000—will turn out and vote for whichever Labour candidate is picked to stand for the Falkirk, East seat in the Scottish Parliament.
Principle is important, but people should know that we are now looking at what we are going to do for them and what is the overall logic. The logic of partnership that comes out of having coterminous, or as near coterminous as possible, constituencies is extremely important. I know that there are exceptions, but it was disingenuous of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) to use two constituencies in the islands to show that that exception means that there is no logic on the mainland in having coterminous constituencies.
I look forward to working with a Member of the Scottish Parliament for a coterminous constituency. We have all tried to build links with local government bodies and it is normal for groups of Members of Parliament from various areas to meet frequently in this place —the Glasgow group of Members of Parliament, for example. With my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West, I have worked with Falkirk council. Coterminosity of focus is important and it is something that the ordinary public will regard as being logical.

Mr. Swayne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Connarty: I shall in a moment. The ordinary public would like to think that the service that we deliver to them, the way in which we deliver it and the way in which hon. Members have coterminous responsibilities is all done for their sake, but I believe that the people of Scotland will see the argument in which we are engaged as one between politicians who are trying to look after themselves.
I hope that the principle of proportionality, which was mentioned earlier, will be addressed in the numbers that come out of this Parliament and that that will be done in such a way as not to damage fundamentally that proportionality. As a supporter of the Labour campaign for electoral reform, I think that that is a good move forward, but we must not disregard the public's desire to be represented in a way that makes logical sense to them.
The public are not confused, but they are unhappy. They already manage to find their way to the right door or doors to get their problems solved, but it would be better if we did not make their path more complicated just because we have other agendas, whether getting more members of our party into the Scottish Parliament, or having a larger number of MSPs just for the sake of it. A dialogue is possible, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said.

Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Connarty: No, the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) asked to intervene first.
I would argue that, if we can simplify the process of engagement with the public and the role we carry out, that will be welcome. Coterminous constituencies are part of that logic.

Mr. Swayne: Although I accept that coterminosity is important, does the hon. Gentleman accept that it should be a matter for consideration by the Members of the Scottish Parliament? They should be included in the decision on such an important matter, but, at the moment, a fait accompli is being imposed on them, before they have even taken their seats.

Mr. Connarty: We published the White Paper and we all got behind it; we got the people to support our proposals at the general election and in the referendum; and now we are carrying out what was proposed. In a sense, everything was set by that White Paper. I do not think that we should allow the Scottish National party, the Conservative party, or those who worry that the principle of sovereignty is more important than the delivery of service, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East seems to be arguing, to try to use the differences to their own advantage.
I believe that we have reached a point where the Scottish Parliament will talk to the UK Parliament and the response to the UK boundary review will take into account its impact on the Scottish Parliament. If things do not happen like that, we will have missed a chance for co-operation, and it is co-operation that will make devolution work, whereas conflict will deliver what the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan wants—independence for Scotland.

Mr. Salmond: Barring the party list, each elector will have one MSP and one Westminster Member of Parliament. The only possible confusion would be between the Members themselves. The hon. Gentleman has relationships with a Member of the European Parliament, who has relationships with another—let me rephrase that: he has an association with an MEP who has an association with seven other Members of Parliament. Does that MEP have any difficulty in having an association with eight different Westminster Members of Parliament whose constituencies fall within his constituency's boundary?

Mr. Connarty: In reality, at any time and in any part of the country, most people have great difficulty in grasping what a Member of the European Parliament does and for whom he does it. The hon. Gentleman's argument is a weak one.

Dr. Fox: Surely the point is that the Lords amendments do not prevent coterminosity; they give the Scottish Parliament the freedom to make up its own mind on the matter. It is the de-linkage that is the important point, because it allows the Scottish Parliament or the majority of Members of the Scottish Parliament to do whatever they think is best. What is wrong with that?

Mr. Connarty: It is funny, but when the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) stands up and defends any part of devolution, the words "crocodile tears" spring to mind. I wonder why that is.


We have only a short time, so I should like to move on. I am concerned—I believe that the people of Scotland are too—about how the new Parliament will interact with all the other parts of civic society that were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East. We are concerned not about the number of Members in the Parliament, but about what it will do, which will not depend on the numbers. Apart from the safeguards necessary for proportionality and dealing with democratic deficit, the Parliament's size is not important, unless it can be shown that the Parliament cannot function properly unless the numbers are changed. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he would listen to arguments on that point—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Bill, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That this House disagree, with the Lords in the said amendment:

The House divided: Ayes 303, Noes 173.

Division No. 375]
[5.16 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clark, Dr Lynda


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
(Edinburgh Pentlands)


Ainger, Nick
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Alexander, Douglas
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Allen, Graham
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Ashton, Joe
Clwyd, Ann


Atherton, Ms Candy
Coaker, Vernon


Atkins, Charlotte
Coffey, Ms Ann


Barnes, Harry
Coleman, Iain


Barron, Kevin
Connarty, Michael


Battle, John
Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)


Beard, Nigel
Cooper, Yvette


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Corbett, Robin


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bennett, Andrew F
Corston, Ms Jean


Benton, Joe
Cox, Tom


Berry, Roger
Cranston, Ross


Best, Harold
Crausby, David


Blackman, Liz
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cummings, John


Blizzard, Bob
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Borrow, David
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Dalyell, Tam


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Darvill, Keith


Browne, Desmond
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Buck, Ms Karen
Davidson, Ian


Burden, Richard
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Burgon, Colin
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Dawson, Hilton


Caborn, Richard
Dean, Mrs Janet


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Denham, John


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Donohoe, Brian H


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Dowd, Jim


Cann, Jamie
Drew, David


Caplin, Ivor
Drown, Ms Julia


Casale, Roger
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Caton, Martin
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Chaytor, David
Edwards, Huw


Clapham, Michael
Efford, Clive


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Ellman, Mrs Louise





Ennis, Jeff
Laxton, Bob


Etherington, Bill
Lepper, David


Fisher, Mark
Leslie, Christopher


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Flint, Caroline
Linton, Martin


Flynn, Paul
Livingstone, Ken


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Lock, David


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Love, Andrew


Fyfe, Maria
McAvoy, Thomas


Galbraith, Sam
McCabe, Steve


Galloway, George
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Gapes, Mike
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Gerrard, Neil
McDonagh, Siobhain


Gibson, Dr Ian
McDonnell, John


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Godman, Dr Norman A
McIsaac, Shona


Godsiff, Roger
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Goggins, Paul
McLeish, Henry


Golding, Mrs Llin
McNamara, Kevin


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
MacShane, Denis


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McWalter, Tony


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McWilliam, John


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Marek, Dr John


Grocott, Bruce
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Grogan, John
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Gunnell, John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hanson, David
Martlew, Eric


Healey, John
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Milburn, Alan


Hepburn, Stephen
Miller, Andrew


Heppell, John
Mitchell, Austin


Hesford, Stephen
Moffatt, Laura


Hill, Keith
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hinchliffe, David
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hoey, Kate
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Home Robertson, John
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


 Hood, Jimmy
Mullin, Chris


Hoon, Geoffrey
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hopkins, Kelvin
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Howells, Dr Kim
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hoyle, Lindsay
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
O'Hara, Eddie


Humble, Mrs Joan
O'Neill, Martin


Hurst, Alan
Organ, Mrs Diana


Hutton, John
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Iddon, Dr Brian
Palmer, Dr Nick


Illsley, Eric
Pendry, Tom


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Perham, Ms Linda


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Pickthall, Colin


Jenkins, Brian
Pike, Peter L


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Plaskitt, James


Johnson, Miss Melanie
Pollard, Kerry


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Pond, Chris


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Pope, Greg


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Pound, Stephen


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Jones, Ms Jenny
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


(Wolverh'ton SW)
Prosser, Gwyn


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Purchase, Ken


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Quinn, Lawrie


Keeble, Ms Sally
Radice, Giles


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Rammell, Bill


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Rapson, Syd


Kemp, Fraser
Raynsford, Nick


Khabra, Piara S
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Kidney, David
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Kingham, Ms Tess
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Rooker, Jeff


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Rooney, Terry


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)






Rowlands, Ted
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Roy, Frank
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Ruane, Chris
(Dewsbury)


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Ryan, Ms Joan
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Salter, Martin
Timms, Stephen


Sarwar, Mohammad
Tipping, Paddy


Savidge, Malcolm
Touhig, Don


Sawford, Phil
Trickett, Jon


Sedgemore, Brian
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Shaw, Jonathan
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Sheerman, Barry
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Shipley, Ms Debra
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Vaz, Keith


Singh, Marsha
Walley, Ms Joan


Skinner, Dennis
Ward, Ms Claire


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Wareing, Robert N


Smith, Miss Geraldine
Watts, David


(Morecambe & Lunesdale)
White, Brian


Smith, Jacqui (Radditch)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Snape, peter
Wills, Michael


Soley, Clive
Winnick, David


Southworth, Ms Helen
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Wise, Audrey


Steinberg, Gerry
Wood, Mike


Stevenson, George
Woolas, Phil


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Stinchcombe, Paul
Wyatt, Derek


Stott, Roger



Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stringer, Graham
Jane Kennedy and


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Mr. David Clelland.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)


Allan, Richard
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)


Amess, David
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Collins, Tim


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Colvin, Michael


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cotter, Brian


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Cran, James


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Curry, Rt Hon David


Baker, Norman
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Baldry, Tony
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Beggs, Roy
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Donaldson, Jeffrey


Bercow, John
Duncan, Alan


Beresford, Sir Paul
Duncan Smith, Iain


Blunt, Crispin
Evans, Nigel


Body, Sir Richard
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Boswell, Tim
Faber, David


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Fabricant, Michael


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Fearn, Ronnie


Brady, Graham
Flight, Howard


Brake, Tom
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Brand, Dr Peter
Foster, Don (Bath)


Brazier, Julian
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Breed, Colin
Fox, Dr Liam


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Garnier, Edward


Browning, Mrs Angela
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gibb, Nick


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gill, Christopher


Burnett, John
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Burns, Simon
Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair


Burstow, Paul
Gorrie, Donald


Butterfill, John
Green, Damian


Cable, Dr Vincent
Greenway, John


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Grieve, Dominic


Canavan, Dennis
Hague, Rt Hon William


Cash, William
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Capman, Sir Sydney
Hammond, Philip


(Chipping Barnet)
Hawkins, Nick


Chidgey, David
Hayes, John


Chope, Christopher
Heald, Oliver


Clappison, James
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David





Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Horam, John
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Ruffley, David


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Hunter, Andrew
Salmond, Alex


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Sanders, Adrian


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Jenkin, Bernard
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Shepherd, Richard


Keetch, Paul
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Key, Robert
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Spicer, Sir Michael


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Spring, Richard


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Steen, Anthony


Lansley, Andrew
Streeter, Gary


Leigh, Edward
Stunell, Andrew


Letwin, Oliver
Swayne, Desmond


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Syms, Robert


Lidington, David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Luff, Peter
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Taylor, Sir Teddy


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Townend, John


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Tredinnick, David


Madel, Sir David
Trend, Michael


Malins, Humfrey
Tyler, Paul


Maples, John
Tyrie, Andrew


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Wallace, James


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Wardle, Charles


May, Mrs Theresa
Webb, Steve


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Wells, Bowen


Moore, Michael
Welsh, Andrew


Moss, Malcolm
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Norman, Archie
Whittingdale, John


Oaten, Mark
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Öpik, Lembit
Wilkinson, John


Ottaway, Richard
Willetts, David


Page, Richard
Willis, Phil


Paice, James
Wilshire, David


Paterson, Owen
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Pickles, Eric
Woodward, Shaun


Prior, David
Yeo, Tim


Randall, John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Redwood, Rt Hon John



Rendel, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Robathan, Andrew
Mr. Stephen Day and


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Mr. Nigel Waterson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 216 to 220 disagreed to.

Lords amendment No. 1 agreed to.

Clause 18

PRESIDING OFFICER

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 9, line 28, at end insert—

("(7) The validity of any act of the Presiding Officer or a deputy is not affected by any defect in his election.")

Mr. McLeish: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 3 to 22, 49 to 52, 119 to 122, 130 and 221 to 234.

Mr. McLeish: This group of amendments focuses on issues concerned with the internal workings of the Parliament. I commend them all to the House.


The amendments are partly concerned with the relationship between the Parliament and the courts. We have adjusted the boundary between them to make it clear that the Parliament and those in it should be able to go about their legitimate day-to-day business without the courts being used as a means of interfering with their activities. I shall say more about that in a moment. We have also recast somewhat the provisions in the Bill dealing with the regulation of Members' conduct, to give the Parliament greater flexibility.
A further set of amendments clarifies various matters associated with the Scottish parliamentary corporate body—the SPCB. Other amendments in the group recast the provisions relating to witnesses, mainly to reflect changes in the description of legislative competence—a theme to which we shall return in a later group. Another set of amendments makes additional provision in respect of the position of political parties in the Parliament.
I draw to the attention of the House the amendments made as the result of our further consideration of the boundary between the Parliament and the courts. Amendments Nos. 2, 49, 50, 51 and 231 were welcomed on all sides in another place.
At the heart of this package is the new clause inserted by amendment No. 49, which will restrict the remedies which may be granted against the Parliament. We judge that it would be wise to ensure that no court may make an order for suspension, interdict, reduction or specific performance, or another like order. That provides a broad protection against attempts to manipulate the business of the Parliament via the courts.
We do not think that we can put the Parliament completely above the courts. For that reason, we have left open to the courts the option of making a declarator. It will, of course, be for the Parliament itself to decide how it should react to any declarator. The Parliament would not be liable for contempt of court if it merely decided to take no action to give effect to a declarator. Rather, it will essentially be a political decision for the Parliament to decide how to react in such cases. We believe that the Parliament will wish to be seen to uphold the law and in most cases would expect it to comply with any court judgment, in particular any that directly affected the civil rights of individuals—for example, a judgment concerning the legitimacy of the withdrawal of rights and privileges of an MSP.

Mr. Nigel Evans: I heard what the Minister said about the amendments being welcomed in another place, but can he tell us how the relationship between Members of the Scottish Parliaments and the courts, as defined by amendment No. 49, differs from the position in this place? Are there major differences?

Mr. McLeish: That is a fair question. Unlike Westminster, the Scottish Parliament will not enjoy the wide but ill-defined privileges accorded by article 9 of the Bill of Rights and through that, Parliament's historic position. We do not believe that we can justify conferring such wide-ranging protection on the Scottish Parliament. However—this is the nub of the matter—the Bill as originally drafted provided only limited privileges for the Parliament, principally in respect of defamation and contempt of court, leaving it exposed to possible attempts to interfere with its day-to-day business via the courts and

to question the validity of its proceedings in certain circumstances. We are taking forward the issues that were raised in the Lords, as a result of which there will be significant differences between Holyrood and Westminster.
The provisions strike the right balance for a body that must be both free to go about the business of law-making while not being above the law. We have also taken the opportunity in the new clause to prevent actions being pursued by the back door, against individuals associated with the Parliament.
We have tabled amendments Nos. 2 and 231 to ensure that the validity of acts of the Presiding Officer or the SPCB cannot be questioned because of some defect in their appointment and, in particular, any defect in any parliamentary proceedings that must be followed before the relevant appointment.
Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 clarify the scope of protection provided to the Parliament in relation to contempt of court, by clarifying that, in order to enjoy the protection conferred by the Bill, reports of proceedings must be fair, accurate and made in good faith.
Amendments Nos. 5 to 14 and 232 deal with Members' conduct. The Government want to ensure that the Parliament puts in place a framework to regulate its Members' interests. Paragraph 9.8 of the White Paper indeed made it clear that there would be "minimum requirements" in respect of, among other things, rules about Members' pecuniary interests.
Amendments Nos. 5 to 14 ensure that the Parliament is under a duty to make provision for the regulation of its Members' interests. The Parliament will have to make provision for a register of interests that is published and publicly available, and for its Members to register their financial interests and to declare such interests before taking part in any proceedings of the Parliament relating to that matter.
The Parliament will also be required to make provision prohibiting paid advocacy. Previously, the Parliament was to be required to make provision for that in its standing orders. We looked carefully at that provision and considered that it could restrict what the Parliament could do. For example, the Parliament may want to make provision for a code of conduct for MSPs, which could go beyond what MSPs did in the proceedings of the Parliament. That would be outwith the scope of Standing Orders. The amendments give the Parliament the flexibility to address such situations.
Moreover, Members of another place expressed concern that provisions relating to criminal offences would be defined in Standing Orders, rather than in legislation. We felt that that was a fair point and the amendments address that concern. They provide that the Parliament must make provision by or under an Act of the Scottish Parliament—ASP. That is not to say that Standing Orders cannot be used at all in the context of provisions about Members' interests. It is anticipated that the core provisions would be in an ASP or subordinate legislation under it, but there is no reason why certain procedural matters, for example, could not be left to Standing Orders.
The provisions are intended to ensure that all MSPs work in a properly regulated framework that ensures propriety in the conduct of the Parliament's business.

Mr. Evans: We welcome the provisions of amendment Nos. 5 to 14 in clause 22. It is right that the Bill should


contain provision for a register of Members' interests, to ensure that the Scottish Parliament gets as fair a wind as possible. Is the register to be enforced in a similar way to that at Westminster, or will separate provision be made?

Mr. McLeish: We shall use similar enforcement procedures to those at Westminster, but build further on them. A new Parliament provides an excellent opportunity to go much further with a code of conduct and its enforcement than exists at Westminster. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman of our intention. The consultative steering group, which I chair and in which there is all-party involvement, is examining the details necessary to flesh that out. A report will be sent to the Secretary of State in December.
The key issue tonight is to ensure that that important provision is written into the Bill, so that we have the strength of the Bill behind us initially, and the Parliament is able to legislate in the future. Standing Orders and the work of my committee will ensure that the code of conduct is first class and subject to the strictest enforcement procedures.
Amendment No. 232 makes it clear that the power of the Parliament to withdraw the rights and privileges of an MSP is not restricted to those cases where an MSP is also being excluded. There may be cases where the Parliament takes the view that the limited withdrawal of rights or privileges may be a sensible sanction to deal with certain sorts of misconduct, but that exclusion would be excessive. The amendment also makes it clear that this is an area with which Standing Orders can properly deal.
Amendments No. 15 to 22 deal with witnesses. I should explain that the ground on which clauses 23 and 24, which also deal with witnesses, were originally built has moved considerably since the clause was first drafted—for example, because of the amendments concerning the legislative competence of the Parliament that were made in another place.
In redrafting the clause to take account of those changes, we have tried to state, in ordinary language, what the Parliament may require someone to give evidence about, while preserving the general position as to the Parliament's powers in the clause as it originally stood.
The key alteration is that we propose to replace references to "devolved matters" and
other matters in relation to which functions are exercisable by Scottish Ministers
by a reference to giving evidence or producing documents
concerning any subject for which any member of the Scottish Executive has general responsibility.
We think that it makes sense to use, so far as possible, language that can be given its ordinary meaning, rather than tying the provision to the complexities of "matters", "relating to" and so on.
In the House, payment to political parties is recognised as the Short money provision. Amendments Nos. 130, 233 and 234 deal with matters concerning political parties. Amendment No. 130 confers a power on Her Majesty by Order in Council to make provision for the SPCB—the corporate body—to make payments to any Opposition political party represented by MSPs in the Scottish Parliament in order to assist those MSPs in performing

their parliamentary duties. That money is an expense of the SPCB and would come out of the Scottish Consolidated Fund.
It is intended that that should enable provision to be made for payments to Opposition parties in the Scottish Parliament equivalent to the so-called Short money that is provided to Opposition parties in this Parliament. That accords with the recommendation of Lord Neill's committee on the funding of political parties. It is envisaged that such money paid will be applied by the parties to obtain research and support facilities for Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen and women, assistance in the Opposition Whips office and other staff for the leaders of the Opposition parties. The amendment provides a way of providing some funding for Opposition parties in the Scottish Parliament until—this is an important point—such time as the Neill recommendations are considered fully by the Government and put on the statute book.

Mr. Dalyell: On a factual point, have all those requirements been made clear to Mr. Miralles the architect? In particular, what will he be told about the change in the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament? These are not frivolous matters and should be addressed now.

Mr. McLeish: All the considerations that are being discussed in the House and in the consultative steering group are recognised by the designers of the Parliament building, so they will be taken fully into account. As to my hon. Friend's remarks about "potential empty offices", the Parliament building will suit its purpose and provide the best deal for the taxpayers. If there are changes in the future, I have no doubt that the accommodation will be utilised properly. I correct my hon. Friend's reference to a "separate office": I think that the impression was created of a separate building for each MSP. That will certainly not be the case. The temporary Parliament on The Mound will be very tight, but there will be ample space for MSPs in the Miralles building. However, the space will not be over-generous.

Mr. Evans: We recognise that there is a need for Short money—especially now that we are in opposition. It is a recognition of the money and support that is made available to Governments. An equivalent amount of money is necessary for the Opposition to ensure the proper working of democracy. Amendment No. 130 is extremely vague. The Minister said that it will provide equivalent Short money. Does he mean that the existing Westminster formula will be replicated in the Scottish Parliament or does he envisage other provisions governing the allocation of Short money?

Mr. McLeish: I shall respond to the implication of that question: the allocation to the Scottish Parliament will certainly be no more generous, as a proportion of expenditure, than the allocation to Westminster. However, the real answer is that the matter is still being discussed. We have attempted to replicate what occurs at present. It is important to remember that it is assistance for the Opposition. It is possible that Conservative Members will participate in the Scottish Parliament, something that will add a new dimension to Scottish politics.


Amendment No. 233 responds to a point raised during debates in another place and provides that Standing Orders will be required to make provision that the Presiding Officer and deputies do not represent the same political party. When the Presiding Officer represents a political party, at least one of his deputies will have to represent another party or be an independent. We think that it is reasonable to provide that small safeguard against domination of those key offices by a single party. The Government of Wales Act 1998 already includes a similar provision. Amendment No. 234 is a technical amendment that ensures that references to political parties in the Scotland Bill are consistent.
I think that these are good amendments, and I commend them to the House.

Mr. Gorrie: I seek some clarification from the Minister regarding amendment No. 130. The money is clearly intended to help the Opposition parties but, according to subsection (3), it could also help parties that are
"members of the Scottish Executive or junior Scottish Ministers".
I assume that the amendment is meant to address the possibility of coalition government. I seek some clarification on that point as an Administration might involve one, two, three or even four parties—if there were some sort of rainbow coalition. Parties co-operating in that sort of Government would still need the apparatus of Whips, research staff and so on in order to clarify their position. Does amendment No. 130 take account of that situation? Have I understood subsection (3) correctly?

Mr. McLeish: That interpretation is largely correct. In the context of the Scottish Parliament—which will introduce proportionality for the first time—there may be coalition government. Therefore, we would not have a Government and a defined Opposition as we do in this place. We are considering the question of Short money and its being reasonably well and effectively dispersed. We must also consider the new nature of the Scottish Parliament under the new political structure. Therefore, the amendment provides some flexibility in relation to that point.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 3 to 22 agreed to.

Clause 27

ACTS OF THE SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT

Lords amendment: No. 23, in page 14, line 20, leave out from first ("of") to end of line 22 and insert

("an Act of the Scottish Parliament is not affected by any invalidity in the proceedings of the Parliament leading to its enactment.")

Mr. McLeish: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 24 to 33, Lords amendment No. 34, amendment (a) in lieu, and Lords amendments Nos. 35 to 48, 63, 135, 159, 235, 236 and 292.

Mr. McLeish: This group of amendments consists, for the most part, of Government amendments to the clauses

concerned with the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and related matters. However, we will ask the House to disagree with amendments Nos. 32, 33 and 34, and have tabled an amendment in lieu of amendment No. 34 deleting clauses 31(1) and 31(2). With permission, I shall deal with those matters first.
Amendments Nos. 31 to 34 relate to the Presiding Officer veto. The amendment in lieu of amendment No. 34 addresses what will happen if the Presiding Officer decides that a Bill is not within the legislative competence of Parliament. Members of the other place were concerned that the Bill, as originally drafted, would mean that it was possible for the Presiding Officer to come into conflict with Parliament by allowing him to be overruled by it if he decided that a Bill was outwith the competence of Parliament. We appreciate the arguments as to why Parliament should not be brought into conflict with its Presiding Officer and so undermine his or her authority. We accept that those arguments have some force, although we believe that the concerns were overstated in the other place.
However, the amendment made in another place by the Opposition would put the Presiding Officer in a very difficult position. It would mean that the Presiding Officer would have an unchallengeable power to decide on questions of legislative competence. We think that that is an uncomfortable and undesirable position for him or her to be in, and we think that it would be an anomaly to leave the provision in the Bill. It would prevent Parliament from being able to consider a Bill that contained a provision that was outwith the legislative competence of Parliament, even if that provision could be readily deleted or amended during the Bill's passage. Such inflexibility is inappropriate.
We think that it is important that Parliament has the benefit of the Presiding Officer's views as to the competence of a Bill. We have provided that the Presiding Officer should make a statement as to the vires of a Bill. Parliament will no doubt want to pay particular heed to its Presiding Officer's views, and we think that our measure avoids the direct tension that we agree an explicit power to overrule the Presiding Officer might create. It sets up a structure that is far less confrontational and that allows room for Parliament to be advised about competence as it considers any Bill. We think that it gives the right result over all and allows disputes to be resolved in their proper place.
The Bill provides a mechanism that allows for the resolution of disputes over the vires of the Bill. If the Presiding Officer were left with the power of veto in this area, it would mean that the courts, and ultimately the Judicial Committee, could not have any role in reaching a view on questions of vires raised by any proposed Bill.

Dr. Fox: Will the Minister clarify at the outset of the debate the role of the Presiding Officer in deciding whether a Bill goes ahead for Royal Assent?

Mr. McLeish: If I may be allowed to continue, I hope that I can address that issue in the scheme of things.
We think that it is preferable in some instances to allow a Bill to be introduced so that Parliament may consider the issue that it raises. It may itself decide that something is ultra vires and reject the Bill at an early stage or it may amend the offending provisions. If there is still concern


at the end of the process, the Law Officers can refer the matter to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It is much better that those issues can be considered by the Parliament and, if necessary, by the Judicial Committee than simply providing that the Bill cannot be introduced if the Presiding Officer thinks that it is outwith Parliament's competence.
I anticipate that Opposition Members may draw parallels with procedures in this place. However, none of them really holds. What we propose is not the same as asking Madam Speaker to decide that a Bill is a Finance Bill and so should not be considered in another place, for example.
As I have explained, we are considering specifically devolution issues. Provision is made in the Bill to ensure that the courts have an opportunity to determine issues of legislative competence. That will ensure that the boundaries of the Parliament's competence are properly mapped and that a consistent body of law emerges. If we do not remove the veto that is now in the Bill, we risk the interpretation of one office holder dictating the limits of the settlement in areas where the law may be uncertain and subtle. That does not strengthen the position of the Presiding Officer. Instead, it pitches the Presiding Officer into the heart of the political situation at any one time, with no means of escape.
I take up the point made by the Opposition constitutional affairs spokesman, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). It may be useful to recap the scheme of legislative competence within the Parliament. First, the Minister makes a statement on his view that the Bill introduced by the Scottish Executive is within the legislative competence of the Parliament. That will be straightforward enough, based on advice. The Presiding Officer then makes a statement on the vires of the Bill. Parliament can decide to proceed in the knowledge of the Presiding Officer's views.
The Bill can be corrected or amended during passage through the Parliament if part of it is decided to be ultra vires. If it remains ultra vires, the Law Officers can refer it to the Judicial Committee for a ruling. The Bill cannot be submitted for Royal Assent if it is ultra vires in the view of the JCPC. The Government's proposals allow the Parliament the flexibility to deal with those matters in a mature, responsible but highly structured way. It is important that there are checks and balances. I think that that takes away the problem for the Presiding Officer and fits the Presiding Officer's role neatly into the structure of the Parliament's activities.
Other amendments in the group relate to schedule 4 and clause 28. They are designed to clarify the way in which the Bill defines the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. They also amend the powers of intervention of the Secretary of State so that they are available when legislation of the Scottish Parliament makes modifications to the law as it applies to reserved matters which have an adverse effect on the operation of law.
Given the time scale involved for right hon. and hon. Members, I propose that we make those complex changes, remembering that we are taking out the amendment from the other place and substituting in lieu positive amendments to resolve the Presiding Officer's position. Obviously, I hope that that is acceptable to the House.

Dr. Fox: This is an extremely important debate in our proceedings. When we saw the Government amendment on Third Reading, we realised that it is not exactly the debate that we thought we would have.
I go back, as I did when we considered the first set of amendments, to what the Secretary of State said at the outset. The right hon. Gentleman said on Second Reading that we would consider events against the worst possible scenario, not the best. He said that we would examine the potential for division and try to ensure that that was removed so that the devolutionary settlement could not be used to drive a wedge between the people of Scotland and the rest of the people of the United Kingdom. That has remained our position.
I worry that the Government have done the opposite of what they originally intended. Originally, the Bill provided for a double-lock mechanism which would prevent the Scottish Parliament from passing legislation that was outwith its competence. In the original Bill, as the Minister correctly said, the Presiding Officer could deem a Bill to be outwith the legislative competence of the Parliament and prevent it from proceeding in the Parliament. Although Parliament could vote to overrule that decision, the Presiding Officer could refuse to present the Bill for Royal Assent. That part of the lock at least seems to remain intact.
In the other place, the Bill was amended to remove the right of the Parliament to overrule the Presiding Officer. We agreed with that provision on the grounds that it weakened the authority of the Presiding Officer and provided a platform for those who sought to use the Parliament to advance the cause of separation by proposing legislation that would clearly be outwith the Parliament's competence.
I take the Minister's point about protecting the Presiding Officer's position. It is a fair point, but it has to be weighed against the possibility of the Parliament's being used to carry forward a legislative process that it knows it cannot take to Royal Assent. I ask the Minister to consider carefully the potential danger that that would introduce. What is open to those who want to take forward legislation that they know is outwith the Parliament's competence and use that Parliament as something quite different from what the Minister intends, which is a legislative body?
What if we have an Administration in Scotland that wants to have a Bill for a referendum on Scottish separation or a Bill to ban nuclear weapons and power stations from Scotland? That would be possible under what the Minister proposes, because such Bills could be taken through the Parliament. Although they might not receive Royal Assent because of the second part of the lock, they could take up a great deal of time. That would provide a useful platform for those who wanted to propagate such views. That is not what the Government set out to provide on Second Reading or during subsequent stages. Indeed, it is not what they argued in the other place. However, an entirely different animal is emerging, and it is strange that we get it so late in our proceedings.
With all due respect to the Minister, I must say that, in trying to protect the position of the Presiding Officer, he has moved far too far in the other direction and is creating a dangerous situation which I do not believe that the Government wanted to see. It could not be further from


the position that was outlined in the original draft of the Bill. I expect that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) will support the Government's change more than he supported the provisions in the original Bill, which worries me a great deal.

Mr. Salmond: Does the hon. Gentleman not feel or understand that the formulation put forward by the Lords, and supported by him this evening, would make the Presiding Officer's post essentially a political one? The Parliament's very first debate would effectively capture the Presiding Officer's post. It would become a sort of presidential role vis-a-vis the Parliament. Under the hon. Gentleman's formulation, those arguments would be put through the person of the Presiding Officer. The hon. Gentleman must understand that political arguments will take place. There is no legislative way in which to remove political arguments from a Parliament. It would be beneficial if political arguments were pursued on the basis of argument, and not through the person of the Presiding Officer.

Dr. Fox: There were the two mechanisms in the original draft of the Bill. There was the right of the Parliament to override what the Presiding Officer was doing. We find now that we are faced with something completely different. I am not entirely unsympathetic to the argument that the hon. Gentleman advances, but it is up to those in the Scottish Parliament to choose the Presiding Officer. It is essentially and unavoidably a political decision, and obviously that would be taken into account.
We have now lost the double lock. The Minister shakes his head; if he can answer my question, I shall be glad to hear what he has to say. I believe that we could be providing a platform for a series of Bills that could never become law because they would be beyond the legislative competence of the Parliament. None the less, they could be taking up parliamentary time. Is the Minister able to confirm that that is not so? If he can confirm that, that would be a major consolation to Opposition Members. However, I doubt that he will be able to do that.

Mr. McLeish: A sensible perspective must be applied to the debate. We are talking essentially about the role of the Presiding Officer and trying to clarify his or her role in the Parliament, which is a very important one. I think that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) raises the spectre, if we pursue part of the discussion, of a very political Presiding Officer. That is the last thing that anyone wants. That is not the function of a Presiding Officer. Certainly, the Presiding Officer will still have a role, as advocated by those on the Opposition Front Bench, in considering the question of vires. I can reassure the House that it is not the Government's intention in any way to dilute the strength of the legislative competence process within the Parliament. Indeed, if hon. Members look at the steps that I have already outlined—involving the Minister, the Presiding Officer, the Law Officers, the Judicial Committee, the Royal Assent and the Secretary of State being able to intervene if the matter that is dealt with impinges on reserved matters at Westminster —this is a serious process.
I am sorry that this is such a long response, but is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the 129 MSPs will be less responsible than we are, and less responsible than councillors operating in every council chamber throughout the United Kingdom? This is a serious business. Not only do we have a serious issue, but it is backed up by a substantial, intense process. However, tonight, we are clarifying the role of the Presiding Officer.

6 pm

Dr. Fox: I hope that the Minister will take it in the way that it is meant when I say that I do not doubt for a moment his sincerity, but that is an example of the most breathtaking naivety that we have seen since the beginning of the Bill's passage. If we are working against the worst case scenario, what if there is a majority in the Scottish Parliament composed of nationalists, separatists and their allies, and what if they want to use the Scottish Parliament, as has always been the fear in this House, for their legitimate ends, as they see it—to drive a wedge between the people of Scotland and the people of the United Kingdom? The Government are now providing them with an easier mechanism than they had before. This is the vehicle that they would like to have.
That will make it easier for Bills to be introduced—potentially by a nationalist working majority—that, under the previous formulation of the Bill, would not have been within the competence of the Scottish Parliament and therefore could not have been introduced.
The amendments are a watering down of the safeguards that we believed we had been given by the Government during the earlier stages of the Bill. They have made the worst case scenario far more likely. They have been bending backwards to satisfy nationalist opinion. It is being done under the guise of protecting the Presiding Officer's position. Perhaps it is even done genuinely in the belief that the Government are protecting the Presiding Officer's rights, but the effect is to provide a vehicle for those who want to use the Scottish Parliament as a platform for division.

Mr. McLeish: With the greatest courtesy, because I always try to pick my words carefully, let me say that that was arrant nonsense. Let us be careful about mixing political issues, in reference to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, and the technical legislative competence issue with which we are dealing this evening.
The point is simply this. We have a strengthened position because we are clarifying the role of the Presiding Officer. In the previous—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Much as I like to give leeway to a Minister when he replies, the rules of the House still apply. Perhaps the Minister can take the opportunity to wind up on the amendment.

Dr. Fox: I am not at all convinced by the argument and, as this goes on, I am becoming more and more disturbed by the fact that the Government have failed to grasp the danger that is presented to them. I hope that this


provision will be looked at again in another place, because a major flaw in the Government's plans is coming through.

Mr. McLeish: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Fox: I give way, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. McLeish: In the other place, this concern was not raised in the specific way that is being discussed this evening. The amendments are about the role of the Presiding Officer. Let me repeat the position very briefly. It was indeed strengthened because we have a series of steps, checks and balances.
Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that MSPs will sit day in, day out to discuss legislation that is not within their competence? I cannot accept that as a notion, but, of course, a set of steps is included in the Bill that will ensure that that simply does not happen. The hon. Gentleman should be reassured by that. I caution him against using words such as "dangerous" and "naive", because this has been a well-worked-out process and, at the fag end of the discussions in Parliament, we hear those statements being made.

Dr. Fox: It is such a well-worked-out process that we had 180-odd groups of amendments in the other place to put right the defects in the Bill. I accept that the Minister's intentions are entirely honourable, but I think that the Government have got this wrong. I simply do not believe that a nationalist majority in a Scottish Parliament would not use everything possible to try to drive a wedge between themselves and this Parliament in Westminster. If they believed that they could take through a series of Bills that they knew would not have legislative competence and could not possibly go for Royal Assent, but advanced their commitment and their campaign for separatism, they would do it.
It amazes me that any Labour politician could still be willing to take a risk on what the nationalists might be willing to do were they to get a strong foothold in a Scottish Parliament. This is a recipe for division. It removes the safeguards that we had. Why do the Government not believe that it would be better to prevent such ultra vires legislation from being aired in the first place, instead of having it messily blocked at the end of its legislative passage? What we had during the earlier stage of the Bill was a lock; what we now have is guidance.
That may be to the benefit of the Presiding Officer standing. I do not have a particularly strong position on that one way or another, but I know that it increases the danger of a Scottish Parliament dwelling on legislation that elements of the Scottish Parliament may wish to put forward for political ends, but they know could not receive Royal Assent because it is outwith legislative competence. That is made easier by this process, not harder.

Mr. McLeish: Again, with the greatest courtesy, I am trying to rescue the hon. Gentleman from the political ferment that he is trying to generate around him.

The original provisions would have allowed the Parliament to decide to overthrow the Presiding Officer and continue to debate a Bill that was outwith its legislative competence, so he cannot make this great stramash and create a situation that never existed.
What we are talking about—I return to it again—is clarifying the role of the Presiding Officer, and then the whole system of checks and balances is still in place. It makes it simpler. It makes it clearer, but the central issue is this: the hon. Gentleman must not confuse political concerns about any political party with a Bill procedure that is designed to achieve the objective of having ultra vires issues dealt with at every step of the process.

Dr. Fox: The role of the Presiding Officer fundamentally changes through this alteration in the Bill because, previously, there was the ability at the beginning of the legislative process to say, "The Bill is outwith the legislative competence of the Parliament and cannot go further"—at least that was the position after the Bill was amended in the other place. What the Government now propose is that the process can be stopped only at the Royal Assent stage. That brings a whole new political complexion.

Mr. McLeish: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Fox: I will give way in a minute.
The Minister tries to draw a line between the politics of the Parliament and the procedure of the Parliament. I think that he is in grave danger of not understanding the danger that is left open here. I hope that he will think again. I will leave it to him to sum up. This major change has come very late on in the passage of the Bill. It seems to be a minor change, but it could fundamentally alter the way in which legislation is taken through the Scottish Parliament.
I caution the Government. They are making a grave error. They need to think about this matter again before someone takes advantage of a situation that they did not really intend and leaves us with the most dreadful consequences, which all of us fear just may be possible.

Mr. Salmond: The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) is confusing two different things. He seems to believe that we can formulate a series of Standing Orders or procedural mechanisms to block political will. Not even his great heroine, Lady Thatcher, believed that. I may be doing her a slight injustice in trying to paraphrase her autobiography "The Downing Street Years", but it ran something like this: "Scotland is an ancient nation. If the Scots were ever to determine on independence, no English politician, certainly not me, would gainsay the process." The quotation may not be exactly right, but it is certainly proximate.
What the hon. Member for Woodspring seems to be saying is that, if people in Scotland determined on independence—or put a nationalist majority in the Scottish Parliament—his procedural mechanism, the blocking mechanism through the persona of the Presiding Officer, would be the ace card to defend the Union. If he actually believes that and if, first, he wants to hold out against the democratic mandate of the Scottish people and, secondly, he believes that the way to frustrate that is


by a procedural blocking mechanism, he has a great deal to learn about political reality and real politics. He also has something to learn about democracy.
I may not ever say this again, but I prefer Lady Thatcher's view on those matters and on the democratic mandate to the view now espoused by Conservative Front Benchers. I thought that, under new Conservatism and the listening to the people exercise, the days of telling Scotland what it could and could not do were meant to be over. I thought that, under new Conservatism, elements of democracy were being introduced to the party's internal procedures and, by extension, it would recognise the will and democratic view of the people. In the last 10 to 15 minutes, that whole principle has been turned on its head. We are now back to the days of "nanny knows best"—going even further than the great nanny herself, Lady Thatcher, in her autobiography.
I caution the hon. Member for Woodspring. First, he should accept democratic procedures and the democratic will of the people. Secondly, he should not believe that it is possible to devise a procedural mechanism to frustrate open and democratic political debate.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: Without subscribing to the apocalyptic view of a challenge by the Scottish Parliament that goes directly against the sovereignty of this Parliament, I have some concern about the way in which the Bill, as it is now intended to stand, will operate. As the Minister rightly said, let us forget about challenges where the Scottish Parliament decides to be bloody minded and pass legislation that it knows perfectly well it does not have the necessary vires to implement. Ultimately, that would take us to the situation in Ireland in 1918, where groups of Members of Parliament detached themselves and claimed that they had sovereignty. It is an apocalyptic view and not something that I hope will happen.

Mr. Swayne: Does my hon. Friend accept that, earlier this evening, that point of view was put by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion)?

Mr. Grieve: An apocalypse may happen. I take the view that, if we get to that pass—we debated this matter at great length during other stages of the Bill—it will emerge whatever the procedural mechanisms are. To that extent, I do not think that there is much that we can do to prevent it.
My main concern is about ensuring smooth government. That implies—the Minister accepted it—that there will be areas where the precise borderline of the competence of the Scottish Parliament may be in doubt, even if there is good will on all sides. In those circumstances, prudence dictates that there should be some mechanism by which legislation, before it is introduced in the Scottish Parliament, can be subject to scrutiny.
I take the Minister's point about not placing on the Presiding Officer a burden that might politicise his position, to the prejudice of his standing and reputation for impartiality within the Parliament. That problem could be cured if there were some mechanism for reference to the courts at an earlier stage. For example, if the Presiding Officer were concerned that a piece of legislation

appeared to be ultra vires, he should be able to obtain the court's opinion. We do not have that mechanism. There is a danger that people will be encouraged to believe that the Scottish Parliament has a competence to implement legislation, and then subsequently be disappointed because it does not. It is not a question of making political points about independence or what is within the scope of the Scottish Parliament; it is a matter of day-to-day realities.

Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman is making a speech that is much more sensible than the one made from the Opposition Front Bench. Perhaps there should be a reshuffle. Was not the Conservative party's previous position that devolution made independence inevitable? "Inevitable" was the word used. Therefore, does that not make the Opposition's anxiety even more difficult to understand? Or is it something else from the previous Parliament that the Conservative party wants us to forget?

Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman knows that I was not in the previous Parliament. He also knows from my speeches in earlier debates that, although I want to preserve the Union and have serious reservations about whether devolution will work, I want to try to make it work. I am a Unionist, so any suggestion that I make is in the spirit of trying to make the system work.
I hope that, even at this 11th hour and 59th minute, the Minister will consider my suggestion. Ultimately, the judiciary will have the final say on the legislative competence of both this House and the Scottish Parliament; so, unless there is a mechanism by which prior reference on a matter of serious doubt can be made before legislation is introduced, people are likely to be disappointed. Also, time is likely to be expended and prove fruitless.

Mr. Gorrie: There are three positions on this issue. There are the first thoughts of the Government as included in the original Bill: that the Speaker of the Scottish Parliament could say that a Bill was not for discussion, but the Parliament could then vote to overrule that. The second position is that taken by the House of Lords: that the Speaker could make such a ruling and the Parliament could not overrule him. The third is the Government's second thought: scrub the whole issue. That is an intelligent second thought.
Earlier, in the debate on a previous amendment, I was greatly encouraged when, almost for the first time in a debate on Scotland, we had some intelligent Conservative speeches and interventions. I am afraid that, since then, the Opposition Front Bench has reverted to the old gramophone record. It is not realistic to expect a Parliament not to debate something that it wants to debate.

Mr. John Hayes: Throughout time and across the globe, democratic bodies have had limits on their competence and, therefore, limits on the matters that they may rightly consider. It is a nonsense to confuse procedure and politics, as the hon. Gentleman must know from his experience in local government. There are limits to debate based on competence. That is not an unreasonable practice in a sound democracy.

Mr. Gorrie: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. My experience of democratic bodies is that they debate


all sorts of things. A council can debate whether nuclear weapons are a bad thing, or that Iraq is a bad place. It knows that it has no power over those matters, but it can debate them.

Dr. Lynda Clark: The hon. Gentleman may be confusing debate and legislation. There is obviously a big difference between debate that does not lead to legislation and debate that does. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would consider that.

Mr. Gorrie: The hon. and learned Lady anticipates my argument. I am not totally stupid, although I say it myself.
We will not stop a body debating. The Conservative argument is that it is wicked for a putative Scottish Parliament with a putative majority for independence to discuss a Bill about independence. My point is that it can discuss a motion saying that it would be very nice if Scotland were independent. Everyone agrees that that would be intra vires. If it were a Bill, it could be ultra vires. We cannot stop the Scottish Parliament discussing whatever it wants to debate.
The Government's second thought is sensible because to set the Parliament against the Speaker would be a bad thing. One of the important aspects of the Westminster Parliament is that, if Madam Speaker tells me to sit down, I do so and there is no messing about. If I had just previously in the Scottish Parliament voted to overrule a Speaker's ruling, that would diminish the power of the Speaker and might cause trouble in Parliament.

Dr. Fox: Self-evidently, a Parliament can debate anything that it wants to debate. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Dr. Clark) was correct to say that there is a difference between a subject that the Parliament might debate and subjects on which it might legislate. We are talking now about the Parliament's legislative competence. What would be the point of the Parliament embarking on the process of legislating on a subject in which it knows that it has no competence, and to create legislation that it knows, ultimately, cannot receive Royal Assent?

Mr. Gorrie: The hon. Gentleman answers his own question. If the Parliament has any brains, it will not go down that path. It is ridiculous to contend that the Union will somehow be destroyed if the Scottish Parliament considers a Bill that is ultimately said to be out of its powers, whereas, as everyone agrees, it is within the Parliament's powers and causes no problem for it to debate and pass motions on the very same issues. It is ridiculous to make such a distinction.
If the Parliament wants to discuss an issue, it will discuss it. If the Parliament knows very well that a Bill will never be passed because it is ultra vires, it would only bring itself into public disrepute by continuing to try to pass it. Even if I were elected to the Parliament and were stupid, there would be 128 other people with more brains than me, who would not do such daft things.

Dr. Fox: That is the precise worry. If I were a separatist, I would want to pursue a legislative path that would bring the Parliament into conflict with

Westminster, thereby creating as much of a public fuss as possible. That is the exact recipe that nationalists seek, and it is exactly what the Government are proposing. There is a huge difference between debate and legislation, which is why we are trying, in schedule 5, to limit the Parliament's legislative competence. The Government's proposals make it more likely that the provisions could be abused by those who want only greater division.

Mr. Gorrie: The hon. Gentleman has lived for some time in the Conservative party and therefore sees life as one huge conspiracy, but I do not see things in that way. The Parliament will be responsive to public opinion. It is ridiculous to suggest that Members of the Scottish Parliament would deliberately waste lots of people's time voting on matters on which they cannot legitimately vote. They will be allowed to debate and air issues, get their headlines in newspapers and their soundbites on television because of motions and other absolutely legal means.

Mrs. Laing: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, procedurally, there is a big difference between a debate or a motion designed to air views on a subject and introducing a Bill—which is what Conservative Members have been talking about? The Parliament's procedure on introducing Bills is the matter that could drive a wedge between the Bill's provisions and the will of the future Scottish Parliament

Mr. Gorrie: I do not accept any of that. Politicians want their soundbites, their appearances on television and their headlines in newspapers, and they will get them regardless of whether they are debating a motion or a Bill. If Members of the Scottish Parliament introduce ultra vires Bills that everyone knows will not be allowed to reach fruition, they will only subject themselves and their party to ridicule, which they will not want to do. The entire basis of Conservative Members' argument is therefore absurd, and shows their party's total divorce from reality.

Mr. Hayes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gorrie: No; I have gone on long enough, as have all the objections.

Mr. Swayne: Having had some optimism over the summer months, I am now filled with the forebodings that filled me in our previous debate on the Bill. The entire matter seems now to have the potential for going off the rails. Despite the common ground that was established in the previous debate on both sides of the House—with the possible exception of those on the Treasury Bench, and one or two other Labour Members—the gulf between us seems to have re-opened. I shall take the risk of being accused of playing the same old gramophone record by saying that it all boils down to an issue that, time and again, we hammered out in the Bill's Committee stage: the issue of good will, and the Bill's reliance on it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to remember that we are debating a Lords amendment. He should confine his remarks to that amendment and not speak about the Bill in its entirety.

Mr. Swayne: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) has drawn attention to the need for


good sense. Conservative Members are not persuaded that good will will be enough. We want to maintain the Lords amendments as they are—as they would ensure that the procedures will act to prevent such problems from arising, rather than having to rely on good will.

Mr. Hayes: I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for giving way. On the matter of precedents of ultra vires in local and other authorities, does he agree that, contrary to the comments of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie), most democratic institutions are limited in what they can pass into legislation—for want of a better term? As the hon. Gentleman said, one may have a debate on any matter. However, as the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Dr. Clark) said, legislating is a very different matter. The problem with the Government's proposals is that they create the potential for debate not on broad matters of academic importance but on legislation. That is the key to the matter.

Mr. Swayne: I agree with my hon. Friend—although I should correct him on his nomenclature in referring to me. His comments seemed to be absolutely elementary.

Mr. Hayes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The nomenclature that I used was "hon. and gallant Friend". I believe that my hon. Friend is a serving member of the forces. Was I incorrect in that?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The title used to be reserved for use in addressing those holding gallantry awards. I do not know whether the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) holds a gallantry award.

Mr. Swayne: Although I wish that I did hold a gallantry award, the sad fact is that I do not, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and believe that there was much sense in what he said. Unfortunately, we are not considering a Bill or an amendment establishing the type of structure that he favoured. We are offered the Bill with either the Lords or the Government amendments, and I tell the House that I prefer the Lords amendments.
Let us just consider the possibilities. Let us suppose that daft or stupid—as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West suggested—Members of the Scottish Parliament, whatever their motivations, introduced Bills in the Parliament to ban nuclear weapons on Scottish soil, for example, or to provide more generous social security provision in Scotland. Both measures might be very popular, and proceeding on them in the Parliament might offer great scope for making political capital. However, doing so would be ultra vires.
I think that it would be much better to have that inevitable political argument and battle at the outset. Everyone agrees that we cannot keep politics out of the matter and that the Parliament will discuss what it will discuss regardless of the rules. Nevertheless, it is better to have the battle at the outset, as the Lords amendment would provide, than to let the matter run its course and to have the battle at the end. Although a battle at the outset would politicise the position of the Presiding Officer, it would be better to let his office take the strain and be politicised. The effect of letting him take the heat of

taking the decision will be to give the impression that the Scottish Parliament has limited itself in consideration of the topic. To do it the other way round, and to let a measure proceed through the Parliament until it is finally ruled ultra vires, would give the very different impression that Westminster had thwarted the will of Holyrood, rather than that Holyrood had limited itself according to the law. That is a key difference and it is preserved by the Lords amendments. We should agree with the Lords in that.

Dr. Fox: To put it in a nutshell, does my hon. Friend agree that it makes nonsense of schedule 5 and the division between reserved and devolved powers for the Parliament to follow a legislative process that cannot be completed because it is beyond the legislative competence of the Parliament? Does that not make a mockery of what we have been doing over the past months?

Mr. Swayne: My hon. Friend is exactly right. It would be a monumental waste of the Parliament's time to go down that route. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West was quite right to say that it is an outrageous proposal that would bring the Parliament into disrepute. However, if the Parliament were debating populist measures, I am not sure whether public opinion would move in exactly that way. I agree entirely that the waste or exploitation of the Parliament's time in that way should be ruled out by the procedures at the outset, in accordance with the terms of the legislation of vires and ultra vires that we have spent days and weeks discussing.

Mr. Syms: We all know that, when private Members' Bills are introduced in the House, public expectations go up. We receive lots of letters as if the measure were about to become law, although as legislators we know that it will not. Is there not a great risk that, if the Scottish Parliament introduces legislation in areas where it does not have competence, that will have the same effect of building up a great deal of public support for something that cannot possibly be achieved?

Mr. Swayne: There is certainly that danger. The build-up of public support, far from bringing the Scottish Parliament into disrepute as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West suggests, will have the effect of bringing this Parliament into disrepute. That is why it is so important to put procedures in place so that the vires is ruled at the start of the procedure and not at the end of it. That is particularly important.
Labour Members have repeatedly drawn attention to the fact that the Scottish Parliament will discuss what it will discuss. That is true in debate, but it must not be allowed to pertain to legislation being put through the Scottish Parliament. If it did, it would make utter nonsense of the schedules that we have considered and all our debates on what should be devolved and what should not.

Mrs. Laing: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) who has most eloquently expressed the crux of the argument. If the Government's motion to disagree with the Lords amendment is carried, it will make nonsense of all the hours that we have spent discussing schedule 5 of the Bill and the Bill itself. It will have been a complete waste of


time discussing which matters should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament and which should be retained by Westminster.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) argued very strongly—I will allow him to correct me if I am wrong—that the Scottish Parliament should have the power to vary the matters over which it has competence. If it is up to the Parliament to decide which Bills are introduced, if it is up to the politicians to decide on the popular matter for discussion of the day, and if it is up to the MSPs at the time to decide whether that matter can be discussed or legislated on, he is effectively saying that schedule 5 is incompetent, that it might as well not exist and that we might as well not have spent many days discussing it.

Mr. Gorrie: May I draw the hon. Lady's attention to the rest of clause 31 which it is not proposed to remove? It sets out all the blocks affecting any legislation going through the Scottish Parliament. Her remarks amount to hyperbole that bears no relation whatever to the facts.

Mrs. Laing: The hon. Gentleman is correct in referring me to clause 31, but I disagree with his interpretation. Under clause 31 all that would happen is that, after a Bill had completed all its stages in the Scottish Parliament, a decision could then be taken that the Parliament did not have competence over that subject and therefore could not pass the Bill. That is precisely what will make a nonsense of the proceedings of the Scottish Parliament.

Mr. Salmond: If the hon. Lady is so concerned that she has wasted her time on schedule 5, why did she and her party not object to the clause that says that, notwithstanding everything else, the Westminster Parliament can always overrule the Scottish Parliament whether or not it has legislative competence? Why did she not concern herself with that clause?

Mrs. Laing: Would it surprise the hon. Gentleman to know that I consider that the most important clause in the Bill? It is vital that that clause be observed because the Scottish Parliament will derive its power from Westminster, just as it derives its power from the Bill which will be passed by this Parliament.

Mr. Salmond: The hon. Lady is saying that, notwithstanding her previous argument about the importance of schedule 5 and working out where she thinks the Scottish Parliament should have legislative competence, she would reserve her right to interfere with the Parliament even in matters where it had legislative competence. Is that her position?

Mrs. Laing: The hon. Gentleman is making my argument for me extremely well. The crux of the argument is that the matter that we are discussing will serve only to drive a wedge between the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Parliament. I appreciate—so must the Minister—that the hon. Gentleman wants to do exactly that. It is the hon. Gentleman's political agenda because he wants a separate Scotland. If the legislation that we are discussing results in the Westminster Parliament and the Scottish

Parliament coming head to head in an irresolvable argument about the competencies of the two Parliaments, it will be more likely that the people of Scotland will become disenchanted with devolution.

Mr. Salmond: The hon. Lady has put her finger on the fact that I support an independent Scotland. However, she is having difficulty in understanding that I do not deceive myself into believing that a procedural mechanism one way or the other will be the subject on which independence is either successful or unsuccessful. It is about politics, not procedure. Does the hon. Lady give me that?

Mrs. Laing: No indeed, I do not. I see exactly what the hon. Gentleman is saying about procedure. Of course it is not the procedure but the way in which it is used. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) spoke about MSPs being stupid. I think that was the word he used—[Interruption.] I do not wish to misquote the hon. Gentleman but he is not correcting me. He was suggesting that some people may not understand procedure.
If I may pay a compliment to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan—I have already become unpopular by paying a compliment to the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), and I like to keep these things balanced—he is an extremely competent political operator and he knows exactly how he will be able to use the very procedure that we are now discussing. Of course democracy is not protected by mere rules. It depends on how people use the rules. The hon. Gentleman knows how to use the rules to his political advantage and I do not want him to gain that political advantage.

Mr. Hayes: Is not the compliment that my hon. Friend has paid to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) tempered by the fact that his problem with the ultimate sovereignty of this Parliament is that he had hoped that the Scottish Parliament would be a federal Parliament—and probably still hopes that? It will be a devolved Parliament, and in a unitary constitution—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Please sit down when I am standing. We are going wide of the amendment and the intervention is also far too long.

Mrs. Laing: I appreciate the basic point that my hon. Friend was making. The important fact about the Scottish Parliament is that it will derive its power from this Parliament and the Bill that is being passed through this Parliament.

Mr. Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that we have already had a fine example this evening of action that the Scottish Parliament may take that would be out of its competence—the issue of the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament? The Scottish Parliament might introduce a Bill to ensure that there were more MSPs than had been allowed by the Bill, with representation equal to Westminster's. Under the Government's proposal, the Scottish Parliament would be able to debate the issue and only at the end of the process, after the vote had been taken, would the process be stopped. That is a great danger to the proper working of the Scottish Parliament.

Mrs. Laing: My hon. Friend is right. It would also be a great waste of time for the Scottish Parliament. I am


concerned about how Scottish taxpayers must feel when they hear about what the Scottish Parliament will do, how many members there will be and how the number will be changed —starting with 129 but then going down to just over 100 because we do not really need 129. Scottish taxpayers must be worried about what the Scottish Parliament will do and what the many highly paid civil servants will do.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us not worry about what the Parliament is going to do. We have specific amendments before us.

Mrs. Laing: I shall adhere strictly to the amendments. If we agree with the Government this evening, we might as well not have had schedule 5. All the rules that have been laid down at great length by the House and our parliamentary process will have been for nothing. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan and his colleagues will be only too happy to continue to drive the wedge that he has spoken of this evening between the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Parliament. That will doubtless be the effect if the hon. Gentleman has his way. I shall not embarrass him by repeating my compliment that he is a clever political operator.

Mr. Syms: My hon. Friend is making a persuasive case. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) talked about procedural mechanisms. Are not constitutional arguments all about procedural mechanisms?

Mrs. Laing: I agree that procedural mechanisms are an important part of the political process. If we do not have well laid out procedural mechanisms—this is what the amendment is about—it will not be clear what is intra vires and what is ultra vires. That is one of the most important rules of constitutional law. If we do not have clear rules, there will be constant squabbles about what the Parliament can do. Only lawyers will benefit from that situation, because they will earn large fees for deciding the arguments. I declare an interest because I am a lawyer and I have no objection to lawyers earning large fees, but taxpayers should be protected from that.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is developing a powerful case. I am not a lawyer—I say that as a matter of pride. I recognise that my hon. Friend cannot penetrate the mindset of Ministers, but does she think that the Government can have any credible reason for wanting to create a situation that would allow the Scottish National party to whip up anti-English hysteria?

Mrs. Laing: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The comments of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) have nothing to do with the amendments, so the hon. Lady should not respond. I remind her that there is such a thing 1as repetition—I shall not go as far as to say tedious repetition. She has made her case on the amendments. To keep repeating her arguments would not be fair to the House.

Mrs. Laing: I conclude from your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have made my point and I am happy to rest my case.

Mr. McLeish: I apologise for the long interventions early on. This has developed into a nearly interesting filibuster. I had hoped from previous debates that the Conservative Opposition were recovering and rehabilitating themselves in the aftermath of defeat in May 1997, but they have gone back to their bad old ways and their tired old arguments tonight. I had high hopes for the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) after her Front-Bench appearance in Committee. The Conservatives cannot distinguish between hysteria surrounding the political interpretation of what is happening in Scotland and the cool, measured view required to look at the legislative process and the issue of competency.
The role of the Presiding Officer—the Speaker of the Scottish Parliament—is at issue. The suggestion of the other place would give the Presiding Officer unchallengeable power to decide on questions of competence. That would escalate his involvement, giving him a role described by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) as essentially political. That is not the role of Madam Speaker and her deputies in this House and it should not be the role of the Presiding Officer and the deputies in the Holyrood Parliament. We have tabled considered amendments that would remove the potential for conflict in Holyrood. The Presiding Officer would be allowed to state a case about vires, but the case would be part of a structured set of checks and balances on legislative competence.
I hope that the Conservatives will take cognisance of what is happening in Scotland. There is no prospect of the scenario that they have come up with being part of the Holyrood scene.

Mr. Dalyell: Could we be clear whether there has been recruitment of Clerks for the Presiding Officer? I gather that Mr. David Millar has been recruited. What is the position of the expert help that any Presiding Officer would need? That ought to be in place before the elections.

Mr. McLeish: The work of the expert panel on procedure is part of the consultative steering group. A lot of detailed work has been done on the points that have been made. An initial appointment has been made. I take my hon. Friend's point seriously. We want to ensure that all the relevant advice will be available after 6 May next year, when the Parliament starts. I assure my hon. Friend that that will be in place; it is a major part of our current considerations.
I want the Conservative party cooly to examine what is proposed for Holyrood. First, the Bill is about reserved competencies for Westminster and devolved competencies, so already a decision has been made on what we should be making laws on in Scotland and what should be kept in this place. Secondly, within the consultative steering group—which contains a Conservative representative—we have agreed to have pre-legislative scrutiny, which does not exist in Westminster.
I challenge the Opposition to consider a situation where all that is incompetent because it is ultra vires. Let us return to the real world—just for a small amount of time, because concentration can be difficult. Let us imagine that we have the devolved responsibilities, which we take


seriously, and pre-legislative scrutiny before a Bill even arrives in Holyrood. We will then have a situation where a Minister with responsibility for education or for local government comes before the House and says that the proposed legislation is within the competence of the Parliament. The Presiding Officer will then make a statement at Holyrood on the vires of the Bill. At every step, is it conceivable that the Parliament—subject to the scrutiny of the press and the public—can be breaking laws day in, day out in terms of legislative competence? That is an absurd proposition from the Conservatives.
After the Presiding Officer's statement, the Parliament can decide to proceed in the knowledge of the Presiding Officer's views. However, the Bill could then be amended and the offending part that was not within vires could be taken out. If it remains ultra vires, the Law Officers can refer it to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Bill cannot go for Royal Assent if it is ultra vires in the view of the JCPC. There can be no more structured set of procedures in any Parliament in the world. It is sensible because it will he a serious Parliament with enormous law-making potential, and it will be responsible for £15 billion.
The Opposition must confront reality and start to trust the people. Are we suggesting that the Members of the Scottish Parliament elected by the Scottish people on 6 May next cannot be trusted to make laws that are within the competence of the Parliament? That is the absurdity of the Opposition's approach tonight. They are going back to their old ways and, frankly, it does their perception in Scotland no good at all.

Dr. Fox: The Minister says that we are proposing an absurd set of conditions. It is, truly, an absurd set of conditions if we are dealing with rational politicians who want to make the Parliament work. However, if we are dealing with a Parliament in which the majority of politicians do not want it to work because they have an alternative political agenda which is quite different from that of the mainstream Unionist parties represented in this House, that is a problem.
In the first draft of the Bill, we had a double-lock—a lock right at the outset where there was, through the Presiding Officer, the ability to stop a Bill. However, that does not exist now—either through the Presiding Officer or anyone else. Why have the Government taken that out of the equation?

Mr. McLeish: To coin a phrase, "Game, set and match". The hon. Gentleman has shown the Opposition's fear of what the newly elected group of 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament will do in the new Parliament. I have painstakingly gone through the procedures to provide the checks. The Opposition are simply not listening because they do not want to listen. They have put forward a set of absurdities.

Mr. Stephen Day: The Minister said that the Opposition did not believe that the Scottish Parliament—or the individual Members, once elected—would be competent to carry out its duties on behalf of the people of Scotland. I do not believe that that is in any way the case. Surely the question is whether the Government were competent in their proposals for the powers of the

Parliament, because when the matter was put before the Scottish people, no details as to what the powers and the definition of the Parliament would be were given. In other words, any question of lack of competence rests on the shoulders of the Government of whom the Minister is a part.

Mr. McLeish: We have had 185 hours of debate in this Chamber and the other place on the Bill. Before that, a number of us became familiar with the White Paper, which was well discussed in Scotland and set out the powers and competencies of the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish people signed up for that in a referendum with two ballots. The hon. Gentleman's proposition is not tenable—he is attempting to find a gold nugget in a complex area.
Tonight, we have set out genuinely and honestly what is happening with the Bill. There is a thorough set of procedures which the Opposition cannot distort and undermine by confusing politics with practicalities. I do not believe that their case stands up and I believe that what we have is robust and will be taken seriously by Scots in the Parliament. I believe that we will have good law making in Holyrood.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 24 to 31 agreed to.

Clause 31

SCRUTINY OF BILLS BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER.

Lords amendment: No. 32, in page 15, line 38, leave out ("subject to subsection (2)").

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. McLeish.]

The House divided: Ayes 350, Noes 119.

Division No. 376]
[6.56 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Borrow, David


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Ainger, Nick
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Brake, Tom


Alexander, Douglas
Brand, Dr Peter


Allan, Richard
Breed, Colin


Allen, Graham
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Brown, Rt Hon Gordon


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
(Dunfermline E)


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Browne, Desmond


Atkins, Charlotte
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Baker, Norman
Buck, Ms Karen


Barnes, Harry
Burden, Richard


Barron, Kevin
Burgon, Colin


Battle, John
Burnett, John


Beard, Nigel
Burstow, Paul


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Butler, Mrs Christine


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Cable, Dr Vincent


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Caborn, Richard


Benton, Joe
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Bermingham, Gerald
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Berry, Roger
Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)


Best, Harold
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Blackman, Liz
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Blears, Ms Hazel
Canavan, Dennis


Blizzard, Bob
Cann, Jamie


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Caplin, Ivor






Casale, Roger
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Caton, Martin
Godman, Dr Norman A


Cawsey, Ian
Godsiff, Roger


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Goggins, Paul


Chaytor, David
Golding, Mrs Llin


Chidgey, David
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Clapham, Michael
Gorrie, Donald


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Clark, Dr Lynda
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Grocott, Bruce


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Grogan, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Gunnell, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hain, Peter


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clelland, David
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clwyd, Ann
Harris, Dr Evan


Coaker, Vernon
Harvey, Nick


Coffey, Ms Ann
Healey, John


Coleman, Iain
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Connarty, Michael
Hepburn, Stephen


Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)
Heppell, John


Cooper, Yvette
Hesford, Stephen


Corbett, Robin
Hill, Keith


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hinchliffe, David


Corston, Ms Jean
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Cotter, Brian
Hoey, Kate


Cox, Tom
Home Robertson, John


Cranston, Ross
Hood, Jimmy


Crausby, David
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cummings, John
Howells, Dr Kim


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Dalyell, Tam
Humble, Mrs Joan


Darvill, Keith
Hurst, Alan


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Hutton, John


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Davidson, Ian
Illsley, Eric


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Jenkins, Brian


Dawson, Hilton
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Denham, John
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Donohoe, Brian H
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Dowd, Jim
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Drew, David
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Drown, Ms Julia
Jones, Ms Jenny


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
(Wolverh'ton SW)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Edwards, Huw
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Efford, Clive
Keeble, Ms Sally


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Ennis, Jeff
Keetch, Paul


Etherington, Bill
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Kemp, Fraser


Fearn, Ronnie
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)


Fisher, Mark
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Khabra, Piara S


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Kidney, David


Flint, Caroline
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Flynn, Paul
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Kingham, Ms Tess


Foster, Don (Bath)
Kirkwood, Archy


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Fyfe, Maria
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Galbraith, Sam
Laxton, Bob


Galloway, George
Lepper, David


Gapes, Mike
Leslie, Christopher


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Gerrard, Neil
Linton, Martin


Gibson, Dr Ian
Livingstone, Ken





Livsey, Richard
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Love, Andrew
Ryan, Ms Joan


McAllion, John
Salmond, Alex


McAvoy, Thomas
Sanders, Adrian


McCabe, Steve
Sarwar, Mohammad


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Savidge, Malcolm


McCartney Ian (Makerfield)
Sawford, Phil


McDonagh, Siobhain
Sedgemore, Brian


McDonnell, John
Shaw, Jonathan


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Sheerman, Barry


McIsaac, Shona
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Shipley, Ms Debra


McLeish, Henry
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Singh, Marsha


McNamara, Kevin
Skinner, Dennis


MacShane, Denis
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McWalter, Tony
Smith, Miss Geraldine


McWilliam, John
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Marek, Dr John
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Snape, Peter


Martlew, Eric
Soley, Clive


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Milburn, Alan
Steinberg, Gerry


Miller, Andrew
Stevenson, George


Mitchell, Austin
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Moffatt, Laura
Stinchcombe, Paul


Moore, Michael
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Moran, Ms Margaret
Stringer, Graham


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Stunell, Andrew


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Mullin, Chris
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
(Dewsbury)


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Oaten, Mark
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Timms, Stephen


O'Hara, Eddie
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Öpik, Lembit
Touhig, Don


Organ, Mrs Diana
Trickett, Jon


Palmer, Dr Nick
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Pearson, Ian
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Pendry, Tom
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Perham, Ms Linda
Tyler, Paul


Pickthall, Colin
Wallace, James


Pike, Peter L
Walley, Ms Joan


Plaskitt, James
Ward, Ms Claire


Pollard, Kerry
Wareing, Robert N


Pound, Stephen
Watts, David


Powell, Sir Raymond
Webb, Steve


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Welsh, Andrew


Prosser, Gwyn
White, Brian


Purchase, Ken
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Quinn, Lawrie
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Radice, Giles
Willis, Phil


Rammell, Bill
Wills, Michael


Rapson, Syd
Winnick, David


Raynsford, Nick
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Wise, Audrey


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Wood, Mike


Rendel, David
Woolas, Phil


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Wray, James


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Rooker, Jeff
Wyatt, Derek


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)



Rowlands, Ted
Tellers for the Ayes:


Roy, Frank
Mr. David Hanson and


Ruane, Chris
Mr. Greg Pope.






NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Amess, David
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Lansley, Andrew


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Leigh, Edward


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Baldry, Tony
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Beggs, Roy
Luff, Peter


Bercow, John
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Beresford, Sir Paul
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Blunt, Crispin
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Body, Sir Richard
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Madel, Sir David


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Malins, Humfrey


Brady, Graham
Maples, John


Brazier, Julian
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Browning, Mrs Angela
May, Mrs Theresa


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Moss Malcolm


Burns, Simon
Ottaway, Richard


Butterfill, John
Page, Richard


Cash, William
Paice, James


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Paterson, Owen


(Chipping Barnet)
Pickles, Eric


Chope, Christopher
Randall, John


Clappison, James
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Robathan, Andrew


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


(Rushcliffe)
Ruffey, David


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
St Aubyn, Nick


Colvin, Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Cran, James
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Curry, Rt Hon David
Shepherd, Richard


Duncan, Alan
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Duncan Smith, Iain
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Evans, Nigel
Spicer, Sir Michael


Fabricant, Michael
Spring, Richard


Flight, Howard
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Streeter, Gary


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Swayne, Desmond


Fox, Dr Liam
Syms, Robert


Gale, Roger
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Gibb, Nick
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Gill, Christopher
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Townend, Jonh


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Trend, Michael


Greenway, John
Tyrie, Andrew


Grieve, Dominic
Wardle, Charles


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Waterson, Nigle


Hammond, Philip
Wells, Bowen


Hawkins, Nick
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Hayes, John
Whittingdale, John


Heald, Oliver
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Wilkinson, John


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Willetts, David


Horam, John
Wilshire, David


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Woodward, Shaun


Hunter, Andrew
Yeo, Tim


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Jenkin, Bernard



Key, Robert
Tellers for the Noes


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Mr. Stephen Day and


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Mr. Tim Collins.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 33 and 34 disagreed to.

Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendments Nos. 32 to 34 agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 35 to 52 agreed to.

Clause 41

THE SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

Lords amendment: No. 53, in page 19, line 5, at end insert—

("(3) A person who holds a Ministerial office may not be appointed a member of the Scottish Executive; and if a member of the Scottish Executive is appointed to a Ministerial office he shall cease to hold office as a member of the Scottish Executive.

(4) In subsection (3), references to a member of the Scottish Executive include a junior Scottish Minister and "Ministerial office" has the same meaning as in section 2 of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975.")

Mr. McLeish: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 54 to 62, 64 to 87, 123, 124, 31, 147 to 151, 170 to 173, 288, 293, 297, and 298 and a motion to disagree.

Mr. McLeish: This large group of technical amendments deals with a wide range of matters, including prohibition of dual mandates, the resignation of the Lord Advocate, the validity of Acts of Scottish Ministers, consultation requirements under clause 51, the sharing of powers under clause 52, interaction with the Human Rights Act 1998, the transfer of property, agency arrangements, the definition of "the Crown" and official secrets. I urge the House to accept the amendments; we will, of course, oppose any attempt to disagree with amendment No. 298.
I understand that Opposition Members are interested in amendment No. 53, which prevents members of the Scottish Executive—which, for the purposes of the clause, includes junior Scottish Ministers—from holding office in the UK Government. The amendment provides that a person holding ministerial office, as defined in section 2 of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 may not be appointed as a member of the Scottish Executive and that, if a member of the Scottish Executive is appointed to ministerial office, he shall cease to hold office as a member of the Scottish Executive. It also makes it clear that the term "member of the Scottish Executive" in this context includes a junior Scottish Minister.
I also understand that Opposition Members are concerned about amendment No. 298, which provides that members of the Scottish Executive and junior Scottish Ministers are Crown servants for the purposes of the Official Secrets Act 1989. It is important that the House appreciates what that does and does not mean. The Official Secrets Act does not always get a good press, but it plays a useful role in enabling the exchange of information within Government, which is why we tabled the amendment.
Amendment No. 298 will ensure that Scottish Ministers are put in exactly the same position as Ministers in the UK Government. It will also put them in the same position as their staff, who will of course be civil servants and, as such, Crown servants for the purposes of the 1989 Act without the need for any amendment. That is all that the proposal is about—it will mean that Scottish Ministers will be able to receive and, if necessary, disclose information covered by the 1989 Act while also being subject to the offences created by the Act.


The Government consider that the amendment is necessary so that Scottish Ministers can carry out their duties to the full. It will mean that there is no anomaly in the position of Ministers as against their civil servants in respect of access to information. We would rightly be criticised if we bequeathed that anomaly to our successors. I hope that hon. Members will recognise that and support the amendment.

Mr. Evans: As the Minister said, the amendments are wide ranging and largely technical, but my primary concern is amendment No. 53, which deals with the dual mandate. We have been asking for such a measure for some time and we believe that the amendment is straightforward and sensible. It recognises that, if devolution is to mean anything, there must be a clear break between those who hold office at Westminster and those who are part of the Executive in the Scottish Parliament. Devolution will mean nothing if the Scottish Executive regularly have to sing to the tune of the Westminster Cabinet.
We know that the Government are still suffering from their control-freak tendencies in every other matter—we saw examples of it only this weekend—but at least they have recognised the stupidity of allowing a two-jobbing politician to have a face, let alone feet, in both camps. That politician's voice would be, by its very nature, the voice of the Westminster Government. A Minister who held positions at Westminster and in the Scottish Executive would necessarily be bound by collective Cabinet responsibility and by what Downing street said.
Will the Minister say whether he believes that a politician can serve two masters? If someone cannot be a Minister both in Scotland and at Westminster, why do the Government believe that someone can be part of the Executive in Wales but also part of the United Kingdom Government? Indeed, someone can be both First Secretary in Wales and Secretary of State for Wales. If the measure in the amendment is right for Scotland, why is it not right for Wales? If a person can serve two masters in Wales, why have the Government tabled this amendment to the Scotland Bill? The people of Wales and of Scotland will be interested to hear the answer to that question.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I speak to the motion, which I tabled with my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), to disagree with Lords amendment No. 298. The Minister has claimed that the Bill is carefully thought through and balanced and that it was constructed as a whole. It was always intended that the Government of Wales Act 1998 should impose on Assembly Members the Official Secrets Act 1989. The measure was wide ranging and subject to some discussion. The House agreed to an amendment of which I did not approve.
As regards this Bill, however, amendment No. 298 was parachuted into the House of Lords. The measure did not appear in statements to the Scottish people and was not discussed by the Scottish Constitutional Convention or—as it was not originally in the Bill—by the House of Commons. Moreover, there was almost no discussion in the House of Lords of the propositions underlying such an important concept. Indeed, those who spoke welcomed or even acclaimed the measure. We all too often accept the conventional way of doing business.
For certain classes of information, the Official Secrets Act makes what we regard as matters of confidentiality the subject of a criminal offence in respect of Government servants and Ministers of the Crown. Other than the Minister's explanation today, no one has said why that is necessary. We are not suggesting that the security of the state— of our island Government or even of Scotland-is at issue, because that is a reserved matter for this House. No one has advanced any argument why it is necessary to impose the criminal law on Members of the Scottish Parliament, as a precondition of election.
I want to test the proposition, because it seems strangely contradictory to the thrust of the Government's intentions on freedom of information, of which I am all in favour. We hear talk of the new politics of openness and the new dispensation in Scotland, yet the Official Secrets Act is being imposed without reasoned thought. Why is it necessary? Is it because a Minister may be too candid with the Parliament or because the Scottish people are not sufficiently grown up to participate in the debates that form public policy on non-reserved matters?
To take a very sensitive issue, if someone were to come into possession of a piece of information about Dounreay that could touch deeply, or even lethally, the lives of UK citizens resident in Scotland, disclosure would be a criminal offence. How can we have a fully informed, proper public debate without the availability of, and access to, information?
The Government agree with me, to the extent that they published one of the most extraordinary White Papers that the country has ever seen: "Your Right to Know". The Prime Minister, no less, wrote a foreword saying how important it was. The original draft of the Bill was in that spirit, inasmuch as it did not extend the use of the Official Secrets Act by what I will argue is the very wicked device of including it here rather than amending the primary legislation.
Why was it necessary to introduce a provision that has at no stage of the process been drawn to the attention of the Scottish people, in the name of whom the Government claim authority for the legislation?
We have not heard any reasoned arguments. The Minister has merely said that matters of confidentiality require a criminal offence, but that is not borne out when we consider the scope, authority and ability of the Scottish Parliament to make law on matters that do not touch on the security of the state. We may prevent proper consideration, with a full, mature adult population participating in public policy. How can we make informed judgments without a flow of information?
I believe our system of government—our constitution and the ways of its workings—to be profoundly good, but one of its sins is that it has for most of this century been dependent on the most extraordinary tool of repression of freedom of discussion: our legacy of section 2 of the Official Secrets Acts 1911 and 1920. That is what is at issue.
The new politics that the Labour party espoused so bravely on day one seems to have withered on the vine, as we still have no freedom of information Bill, despite many promises. I thought that, in that open climate, Scotland would be relieved of something that inhibits informed public debate. It is often said that Governments do not mind freedom of expression, because by and large


our prejudices are simply not informed, but that they fear equality of information, because that allows people to argue on an equal basis about the right course of action.
I believe that the measure is wholly inappropriate, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East. Unfortunately, he could not be here today, but he asked me, as we are both true-born Scots, to express that view on his behalf.

Mr. McLeish: I acknowledge the expertise and interest of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) in these matters. My arguments are not so sophisticated. We want consistency, so that our access to the Official Secrets Act is consistent with that of Westminster Ministers. I believe that that is right. That is my core point, although I acknowledge that there is a wider argument about why others might construe that as stifling proper dialogue with the public and as preventing what I believe that the hon. Gentleman described as a mature debate in Government.
As the hon. Gentleman said, we are a Government who believe in freedom of information, even if we have not got as far as he would like. I hope that the new Scottish Parliament will enter into that spirit and, more important, participate in the development of freedom of information.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Both my hon. Friend the Minister and I have an interest in these matters, because we both hope to be elected to the Scottish Parliament. I am worried by the point that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) made: he painted a scenario in which, if I were to table a question to my hon. Friend in the Scottish Parliament, he could be prosecuted for giving me an answer. That is a terrifying thought. It would be useful if my hon. Friend could clarify the point, because I am sure that that is not the intention.

Mr. McLeish: In my judgment, the system works for the Westminster Parliament. We want to take that set of conditions and apply it at Holyrood. Because of a wider range of issues with which he is concerned, the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills does not think that we should do that. I have argued simply from the premise of consistency.
Scottish Ministers may become aware of matters covered by the Official Secrets Act. Making such Ministers Crown servants gives them the protection of section 7 of that Act, which can be invoked if the disclosure is made in accordance with their official duties. I believe that our proposal is simple and straightforward, providing consistency and good government and giving us the necessary basis for debate on some sensitive issues.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I have great respect for the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and his expertise in these matters, but I think that he is being too alarmist. Will my hon. Friend the Minister confirm that Back-Bench Committees in the Edinburgh Parliament will have the right of access to material when they cross-examine Ministers on policy and other matters?

Mr. McLeish: In the spirit of my original explanation, that will be the case. We are talking about a Parliament

that will make real laws and scrutinise the Executive on real live issues. We should not create a pretence that the Scottish Parliament will be any less stringent or intense in scrutiny than we are at Westminster.
We should keep matters in perspective. There is nothing terribly sinister in what we are attempting to do at Holyrood in comparison with what happens at Westminster. My speaking notes could fill volumes of Hansard, but I would rather provide the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills with a detailed written response in which I can set out the full background. I have tried to cover the substance of his point this evening.

Dr. Fox: I am not sure whether the Minister intends to return to amendment No. 53. In case he does not, I should not let the moment pass. He has told us about the change that is being made, but why did the Government choose to include in the Bill the provision that a Minister of the Crown cannot serve in the Scottish Executive?

Mr. McLeish: I was going to return to that point, but I wanted first briefly to respond to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills.
The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) has raised what might be called the Welsh factor, although this is a Scottish debate. There is no mystery in why we have acted as we have. We are dealing with the devolution of primary legislation to Scotland, and we simply cannot have Ministers who are both members of the Scottish Executive and Ministers of the Crown at Westminster. The Welsh Assembly will be responsible not for primary legislation, but for subordinate legislation, and that distinction is important. Once the Holyrood Parliament is set up, the Scottish Executive and Members of the Scottish Parliament will get on immediately with their business. In Wales, I expect there to be a considerable amount of liaison during the first few months of the Assembly. I do not want to stray on to Welsh business, but it may be that Ministers at Westminster may also populate the Welsh Assembly in some capacity.

Mr. Dalyell: The Minister says that the Scottish Parliament must get on quickly with its business. If there are to be Committees, they must be serviced, and they must be serviced by skilled people. What arrangements have been made to provide skilled assistance? The skills required are somewhat rare, as the activity is a specialist one. Has the provision been thought through?

Mr. McLeish: There has been an enormous amount of discussion about that point. We are setting up a Parliament and specialist Committees, which will, for the first time, combine legislative and scrutinising functions, and we know the level of expertise required. Work is being done with the consultative steering group, and we are recruiting staff. I shall write to my hon. Friend to detail what has been done to tackle his specific point.

Mr. Evans: I have no doubt that the Scottish Parliament will want to get on with business, as will the Welsh Assembly. The amendment is right, and we wanted it all along. If devolution is to mean anything, it is inconceivable that a Minister in the Scottish Parliament could also be a Minister at Westminster. Collective responsibility means


that that could not work, as devolution would not function properly. Does the Minister, for the sake of consistency, accept the principle of amendment No. 53, which is that to have a two-jobbing Minister at Westminster and at either the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly simply would not work?

Mr. McLeish: The final stages of the Scotland Bill are no forum for discussion of the Welsh Assembly. We are responding to the situation in Scotland. The amendment is straightforward, and it is important. It would not be wise for me to comment on other Bills, or on an Assembly with which I have no involvement.

Dr. Godman: My question is prompted by the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow Mr. Dalyell). Specialist advisers are important, and provision must be addressed. As one who will not sit in the Scottish Parliament, may I say that many new Members will have none of the experience of cross-examining Ministers that most Members at Westminster gain through the Select Committee system? I hope that some attention will be given to the guidance of new MSPs.

Mr. McLeish: The new Parliament will contain a smattering of experience, but my hon. Friend has a point. We will embark on training relating to the nuts and bolts of Parliament and the whys and wherefores of Committee work. The consultative steering group has set up expert panels on technology, procedures and the media, and some of the most distinguished people in the country serve on those panels. We have not simply waited for the Parliament to be established. We have made a serious attempt to build up to the point at which Members who are elected can get quickly on to business and have the expertise at their disposal to do so properly and effectively.

Mr. Shepherd: I want to clarify one point. To whom will a civil servant in Scotland owe his or her first duty of allegiance? Will it be to the Secretary of State, who sits in the Westminster Parliament?

Mr. McLeish: The civil service is a unified service, but the first call on civil servants in Scotland will be from the First Minister.

Mr. Shepherd: indicated dissent.

Mr. McLeish: If I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman's question, I apologise.

Mr. Shepherd: With whom does a civil servant's first duty lie? The Minister says that the first duty in Scotland is to the Scottish Minister. However, Crown civil servants within a unified service clearly owe a duty to the Crown at present, through the Secretary of State for Scotland, in the United Kingdom Parliament. Who will be their master?

Mr. McLeish: Clearly, the civil service will remain a unified service, but civil servants working in Scotland will work through the First Minister to the Crown. They will

swear allegiance in the same way as Ministers at Westminster. The process is not complex.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 54 to 87 agreed to.

Clause 89

APPOINTMENT AND REMOVAL OF JUDGES

Lords amendment: No. 125, in page 42, line 37, leave out ("making such a nomination") and insert

("nominating persons for such appointment")

Mr. Dewar: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 126 to 128, Lords amendment No. 129, amendments (a), (b) and (c) in lieu.

Mr. Dewar: I ask the House to agree to Lords amendments Nos. 125 to 127, but to disagree to amendments Nos. 128 and 129, to which there are amendments in lieu.
Amendment No. 125 has been much discussed at various times. It is odd that it has caused so much excitement. One would get the impression that we were in the habit of knocking down judges as if they were ninepins. In fact, I know of no attempt, at least in modern times, to remove a judge from office in Scotland. There have been occasional cases of resignation as a result of difficulties or special circumstances, but no attempt has been made to force out a judge. I do not expect that it will be a common occurrence in future, either. Indeed, so uncommon is the occurrence that, in drafting the Bill, the matter emerged as a gap in the law of Scotland. There is no provision for sacking a judge in Scotland; no one thought it necessary to have such a provision because no one had ever wanted to do such a thing. Perhaps that is a tremendous tribute to the quality of our judges; I say that in an even tone.
There is a distinction between judges and their more fallible brethren on the shrieval bench because there is machinery for the removal of a sheriff. In my long memory, which is now very long, I can think of two occasions on which that machinery was implemented. On both occasions, for very different reasons, the gentleman concerned left the bench. For judges, the matter has not come up and it has never been felt that there was a great need to deal with the issue. If it has caused much trouble, it is a rod that we made for our own back by trying to fill the gap in the interests of completeness. I stress that, while I regard it as important that we get it right, I regard it as likely to remain—I hope that no one misunderstands me—a somewhat academic exercise.
The Bill was amended in another place to provide for a tribunal composed exclusively of senior judges, with membership restricted to Lords of Appeal in Ordinary and holders of high judicial office who were either Members of another place or Privy Councillors. It was proposed that those persons should be given the task of reporting the case for removing a judge and so acting, to use a term of art, as gatekeeper to the whole process. That was suggested because it was felt that the proposition in the Bill was not entirely satisfactory. The Bill simply proposed that a judge


could be removed on a vote of the Scottish Parliament with a two-thirds majority, not of those voting but of the entire Parliament. That was meant to be an important safeguard, because it would be unlikely, particularly given the voting system that we have introduced, that one could succeed in removing a judge without putting together a coalition that covered several parties.

Mr. Dalyell: Has the Secretary of State consulted the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Lord Justice Clerk about safeguards? It would be of great importance if they have said that they are satisfied with the safeguards. What is their attitude?

Mr. Dewar: Before the amendments were tabled, there was discussion with the Lord President, Lord Rodger, and I understand that he was satisfied with our proposals, as the Opposition appeared to be when we outlined our intentions on Third Reading in another place. We are well equipped with support in this instance.
I found some of the arguments prayed in aid of the amendments moved in another place a little excitable. I say that with respect to a close personal friend of mine for whose intellectual capacity I have great respect. I refer to Lord McCluskey who, to put it in lay language, got the bit between the teeth to some effect. I was entertained to discover that the proposal for removal on a two thirds majority of the Parliament was
a constitutional monstrosity … the greatest threat to the independence of the Scottish judiciary since the eighteenth century",
and a threat to democracy itself. I felt quite important because I did not realise that I was a constitutional Genghis Khan, dealing death and destruction all around. I was pleased to discover that Lord McCluskey rightly emphasised having everyone equal before the law and said magisterially—or, indeed, judicially, in manner at least—that that principle applies to
Donald Dewar, the Earl of Elgin, and the Governor of the Bank of Scotland.
That was odd company in which to find myself.
I mock Lord McCluskey gently because I have great respect for him and realise that he had a genuine concern. Some of the arguments pushed the boat out a little far. He said:
if the judges are not independent, if they can be sacked by the Government when the Government doesn't like the way they are deciding cases, the courts quickly degenerate into becoming tools of the executive, and democracy is dealt a fatal blow.
I hope to reassure him that, whatever the nuances of the argument, and however the balance should fall, no one who has been engaged in it imagined that we would be dealing with a situation where the Government would sack someone because they did not like the way in which that person was deciding cases. Of course, that would be a very serious matter indeed. I do not think that that would have arisen, but he is entitled to say that we must deal with the worst case scenario and that if we are to fill this lacuna in the law, we should do it adequately and with care. I am happy to endorse that.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The Government's amendment (c) states:
Provision shall be made for a tribunal".

It is not clear whether such provision will be made ad hoc in response to a particular issue arising in respect of a particular judge or whether it is general. Will such provision be made soon so that it is in existence to deal with circumstances as they may arise?

Mr. Dewar: Our proposition is that we should broadly follow the procedure for removal of a sheriff. There should be a gatekeeper.

Mr. Hogg: Perhaps the fault is mine for not putting my point sufficiently clearly. I do not understand whether the provision will be made only if a particular case arises or whether it will be made generally so that it is always available to deal with circumstances that may never arise.

Mr. Dewar: That is an interesting point on which I shall no doubt get some advice. My view is that it will only arise when there is a need. I presume that the tribunal will not be a standing body. If it is, I might apply for the secretary's job, which I hope would carry suitable remuneration while being lightly worked. It would be the last sinecure, going back to Lord McCluskey's 18th century.

Mr. Hogg: I am pleased to make provision for the Secretary of State's retirement and future employment but I think that we are dealing with rules for the composition of a tribunal rather than setting up a tribunal. I am seeking to discover, so far unsuccessfully, whether the tribunal and rules will be set up to deal with a particular case or whether, early in the lifetime of the Parliament, general provision will be made to deal with a case that may or may not arise.

Mr. Dewar: May I say with beguiling honesty that I understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point perfectly but did not know the answer to it. I have been rescued from that predicament and I understand that the intention is that a tribunal can be set up as cases arise. It is not necessary to set up a standing body because we anticipate that it would be used rarely, if at all. There is no need to have it in permanent limbo, waiting for a client who never comes.

Mr. Grieve: In the amendment from the other place, the tribunal's form and structure are clear because they are defined. The Government's amendment is more nebulous and leaves much more room for interpretation. It is on that point that the Opposition seek clarification because the tribunal's composition is crucial.

Mr. Dewar: On that point, I have to disagree with the hon. Gentleman. As we are running towards the end of the Bill, I should say that I am delighted to see him yet again in his place. As an expatriate, he has stayed the pace remarkably well and given me much entertainment in recent months—and not many Conservatives do that.

Dr. Fox: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dewar: No—let me answer the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), because he has raised a serious point. We intend to stipulate the qualifications of the


chairman, but we are not attempting to stipulate the entire membership of the panel—the individual members who may be called to their posts many years hence. Clearly, I assume that the panel will carry credibility, comprising people of expertise and standing—the sort of people who can offer genuine advice about a difficulty that has arisen in respect of judges of the Court of Session and the chairman of the Scottish Land Court, who has the same status as a judge. I do not think that we should try, in an ad hoc body, to stipulate a curriculum vitae that must be met, or a definition that has to be honoured. To allow a degree of flexibility makes sense.

Mr. Grieve: I am much obliged to the Secretary of State for half answering my next question. He clearly accepted that the amendment made in another place had some substance; otherwise, presumably, the Government would not have embarked on something similar. Therefore, my next question is to seek clarification as to why he felt that the form of the tribunal as proposed in another place was unsatisfactory.

Mr. Dewar: We anticipate that the panel will be judicially led in terms of its chairmanship, but not that it should be entirely or necessarily appointed from the ranks of the judiciary. When setting up a panel to deal with difficult circumstances pertaining to an individual judge, there is some merit in that approach. Judges do not come in crowds in Scotland: they tend to know each other and have long-standing connections and knowledge, which can be both an advantage and a disadvantage. It is important that there should be flexibility in the composition of the body that is called into being to look at a specific case. Nevertheless, we are anxious that the tribunal should be headed by a figure whose qualifications and knowledge are reassuring, and that is why we have stipulated the qualifications for the chair of the tribunal. These are difficult issues to balance, but I believe that ours is a sensible proposition.

Dr. Fox: The Secretary of State will understand that the target audience and acute readers of the clause will look for answers to the questions in rather more detail than most of us would care to delve. Will he confirm that my understanding of what he said to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg)? The Government amendment (c) states that Provision—that is, provision for the tribunal—
means provision by or under an Act of the Scottish Parliament".
Therefore, it is intended that primary legislation will give overall form to the tribunal, and that any subsequent action would be taken through secondary legislation. Is that a correct reading of the right hon. Gentleman's intentions?

Mr. Dewar: I am not sure whether I followed that exactly, but no doubt others have done so and will advise me. We are trying to provide an impartial machinery to give advice to the Scottish Parliament should the unfortunate circumstances that we are debating crop up. I believe that we should all have an interest in that aim.
The intention is that the Parliament can make general provision in respect of the dismissal of judges, including the arrangements for appointing the members of the tribunal and its rules and procedures. The Government

amendments give the Parliament the flexibility that would not be available if the Lords amendments remain. The Lords amendments are prescriptive, whereas we are trying to allow a degree of—I was about to say room for manoeuvre, but that sounds somewhat shady, so I shall not adopt that phrase. We are trying to broaden the base, bearing in mind the need for suitable candidates who will command the confidence of everyone, including someone who might be the subject of investigation or consideration by the tribunal.

Dr. Godman: Is there a right of appeal in respect of a decision taken by the tribunal?

Mr. Dewar: The decision is taken by the Scottish Parliament. The recommendation of the tribunal has to carry a majority vote in the Parliament, and I doubt that there is any formal appeal from that. However, the procedure is extremely special and would give all those involved in it pause for thought. I have only been involved in one similar case: I shall not go into details, but it involved a sheriff. At that time, I was shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, and the then Secretary of State invited me to come and see him in his room. The procedure was taken extremely seriously, even though, I regret to say, that there was no controversy about the matter. No one should imagine that such cases will be taken lightly, either by the Scottish Parliament or by anyone else.
The Bill provides a minimum framework—we are not trying to cross all the t's and dot all the i's—but we have always assumed that the Parliament will be able to choose, if it so wishes, to add to the framework by enacting further legislation. That is the point to which the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) referred. The removal of judges is not only a matter of private concern for the judges, but an issue of serious public interest. There is a legitimate debate to be had, into which Lord McCluskey entered with enthusiasm and, in so doing, threw up some interesting ideas. However, it is not always wise to leap to a conclusion either way during the final few days of a Bill's passage through Parliament.
The key point is that clause 89 is entrenched. The Scottish Parliament will have to live with what it says and will have no scope to replace any of its provisions; it will be able only to expand on them. That is why the essential safeguards should appear in the Bill, but the fleshing out and the determination of the final mix of experience and standing on the tribunal is a matter for the Scottish Parliament. We think it right that the Scottish Parliament should have that element of discretion, so that it can develop the procedures that apply in Scotland for the removal of judges.
The Government's alternative amendment to Lords amendments Nos. 128 and 129 therefore provides simply that provision shall be made—which, in this context, means provision by or under an Act of the Scottish Parliament—for the First Minister to constitute a tribunal of at least three persons to investigate and report on the case for the removal of a judge. Three is a minimum number and not a prescriptive figure. The amendment ensures that the chairman will be a person eligible under clause 94 to be a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The First Minister still requires the Parliament's approval before being able to recommend to


Her Majesty that a judge be removed; but he may not seek that approval unless the tribunal has reported that the person is unfit.
We are giving the tribunal a key role, which is an important safeguard against the possibility of a Scottish Parliament taking a political dislike to a member of judiciary and attempting to act in the manner of Charles I during the 17th century. I believe that such circumstances are unlikely to occur, but I concede that I cannot exclude the possibility of their occurring in future years. That the chairman has to be eligible to be a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council gives us a reasonably wide choice of distinguished legal figures, whose number currently includes several extremely distinguished Scottish judges.
The tribunal's report must be laid before Parliament. Given the addition of a statutory tribunal to the process, we see no need also to require the two-thirds majority. Having included in the Bill the body that has to report and without whose say-so the matter cannot proceed, we saw no reason to overburden the machinery by demanding the high test of a two-thirds majority; therefore, the amendments in lieu remove that test. We have retained the provision that, where the person who may be removed is either the Lord President or the Lord Justice Clerk, the First Minister must also consult the Prime Minister. We have been properly tender of the feelings of the judiciary. Some might accuse us of having been over-tender, but it is better to make it clear that the fears that have been expressed are not real.
I said in reply to an earlier remark by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that the Lord President has been involved and, it would be fair to say, taken an active part in correspondence and discussion about the Bill's final formulation. He has helpfully put forward his opinions on this and other matters.
The proposals to some extent reflect the existing provisions for sheriffs under the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971 and are therefore tried and tested.

Mr. Dalyell: Do we take it that there is no dissent from what is proposed from any of the senior judges? I am prepared to believe that there is no dissent, but I should like it to be stated on the record.

8 pm

Mr. Dewar: I cannot pretend that I have discussed the matter with all the senior judges, but the Lord President has been consulted. The judges are collegiate; the Lord President is the leader and has a duty to reflect their opinion. I am not aware of any dissent on the matter. While strolling in a park in Edinburgh at the weekend, I had the advantage of having a discussion with Lord McCluskey. [Interruption.] I felt very safe in judicial company. I do not want to misunderstand his position, but I got the impression that he was at least mollified, and on that I rest my case.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, there is no reason to fear for the future independence of the judiciary. If there were a risk of political interference, building a tribunal, even on the lines that we are proposing or those agreed in another place, would not stop a tyrannical Administration who were determined to bulldoze their

way through judicial independence. They would probably not find it too difficult to bulldoze their way through the committee as well. I do not imagine that that will happen, and we have made proper provision to build in safeguards that I hope will be deemed adequate.
I listened to some hon. Members saying that the proposals were the end, if not of the world, at least of judicial integrity. We should consider that south of the border, since the Supreme Court Act 1981—the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) will be aware of this, being a man learned in the law—a judge can be removed on a simple majority, admittedly of both Houses of Parliament, with no committee, panel or judicial inquiry. I find that position a little puzzling, although I recognise that there are important differences that no doubt justify it.
I accept that it is possible to argue that the House of Lords is such a bulwark of individual liberty and such a collection of people of integrity, expertise and skill that it was not necessary to have people to investigate the facts and reach an opinion that a recommendation could safely be made. However, judging by the fierce expression of the need for a safeguard and a proper inquiry into the individual case, I would have suspected that hon. Members would have wanted to amend the 1981 Act, but there does not seem to be a great enthusiasm for doing so. That is a matter for those who have a particular responsibility for the machinery south of the border.
We have properly listened to the fears that have been expressed, but I hold to my belief that there is no danger of abuse. I accept that, if those fears are even voiced, there is a case for including safeguards and ensuring that we all go home, if not happy, at least satisfied.

Mr. Evans: The Secretary of State rightly said that this issue has made many people excitable, and I suspect that I am at the Dispatch Box because it was thought that I was the most appropriate person to deal with the issue.
It was heart warming to hear the Secretary of State speak so highly of the other place as a bulwark within Parliament. I look forward to his contributions in a similar vein in the next Session when we shall discuss in more detail the qualities of the other place. The Bill has led us to consider the importance of the second Chamber because of the way in which the legislation has been improved by the amendment tabled by Lord McCluskey and the fact that the Government have reconsidered the matter and tabled their own amendment.
I have read Lord McCluskey's contributions in the early hours of 7 October in the other place and on Report on 2 November, when he was forced to call a Division. He had the support of two serving Law Lords, four retired Law Lords, one serving Court of Session judge—Lord Cooke of Thorndon, the retired chief justice of New Zealand and a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council—and two former Lords Advocate. When someone of Lord McCluskey's stature is able to command the support of such individuals, it is only right that we take his amendment seriously.
We are discussing the independence of the judiciary, which I am sure Members on all sides of the House hold in high regard, especially when we are considering the establishment of a new body. We need to get that absolutely right. The fact that it is dealt with in the Bill means that attempts are being made to ensure that the


integrity of the judiciary will be upheld. The fact that the Government have tabled an amendment reveals that they are coming some way towards accepting the fears expressed by Lord McCluskey and others.
The removal of senior judges is a serious issue, and we must ensure that the practice continues to be rare and that it is fair and open and complies with our other obligations under the European convention on human rights and the Latimer house guidelines for the Commonwealth, which approve the Harare principles, about which Lord McCluskey so eloquently spoke in the other place. The Harare principles state:
In cases where a judge is at risk of removal, the judge must have the right to be fully informed of the charges, to be represented at a hearing, to make a full defence, and to be judged by an independent and impartial tribunal. Grounds for removal of a judge should be limited to

a) inability to perform judicial duties
b) serious misconduct".

Article 6 of the European convention on human rights states:
In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law".
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who is not in his place, was trying to establish with the Secretary of State that the tribunal would be impartial and independent. I hope that the Secretary of State will say a few more words about that.
Although the Lord Advocate stated in another place that it would be beyond belief and inconceivable that judges would be removed at the whim of fancy, judges will increasingly be involved in matters of political controversy. I am sure that the Secretary of State has, as I have, read many newspaper articles about the wisdom of some of our judges in their deliberations and decisions. My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) spoke earlier about worst case scenarios, and when we are passing legislation we should ensure that it is as watertight as possible and that we prepare for all eventualities.
I understand that the Secretary of State for Scotland hopes to achieve great heights in the Scottish Parliament. I am sure that he would never stoop to such base, earthy instincts as populist rhetoric, and that he will observe the high standards that we associate with him in his present capacity. However, others—possibly others not too far from him—may hold that new position. We should put in place safeguards and guidelines that everyone will have to follow.
We seek a fair and sound structure for the removal of judges, which separates political considerations from the initial assessment of unsuitability. That was the aim of the McCluskey amendment. An independent tribunal established by law would be the most appropriate way of achieving that. Lord McCluskey pointed out that, since 1877, it has not been possible to remove a sheriff without an independent inquiry by senior judges set in train by the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk.
The Faculty of Advocates stated that
the tenure of judges should remain such that they cannot be removed from office other than on the basis of fitness or misconduct, and that this should be expressly stated in the legislation … it is necessary to have some means of determining the fitness of judges that is independent of the political process".

That is what we are seeking this evening. The value of the work that has been done in another place is demonstrated by the fact that, until now, the Government have been opposed to writing that into the Bill and accepting the proposal for some form of tribunal to examine the unsuitability of judges before the matter goes to the Scottish Parliament.

Mr. Dewar: Speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, the hon. Gentleman puts tremendous stress on the need for a judicial investigation rather than a general debate in Parliament. Is he happy with the present situation in England?

Mr. Evans: If the matter had not appeared in the Bill, I expect that it would not have been raised because it would have been on an equal footing in Scotland and in England. Because it is written into the Bill, it is the subject of debate today and was taken up by Lord McCluskey.
The Secretary of State mentioned that the two thirds vote of Parliament would no longer be required, and that a simple majority of the Scottish Parliament would be sufficient. I welcome that. Lord Mackay of Drumadoon in the other place outlined the problem that would arise because of that extra lock. Not only could the matter go before a tribunal, but a majority of two thirds of Parliament—not just two thirds of those voting—would be required. That would mean that, if the majority of MSPs, but not quite two thirds, voted against the judge, it would put him in an impossible position. Therefore, I welcome the fact that the simple majority has been introduced.
I have three questions for the Secretary of State. First, is the Government's reluctance to accept the full changes proposed by Lord McCluskey due to the fact that they wish the Scottish Parliament to lay down the procedure, building on the changes in the Bill? Does he see that as a process, rather than the destination?
Secondly, the provision for the tribunal is left more open than in the McCluskey amendment. We are not certain of the full number of tribunal members. We know that there is a minimum of three and that the chairman will have the high regard of everybody, but we do not know about the other members. Would it be possible for members of the tribunal to be Members of the Scottish Parliament or even Members of Parliament at Westminster? If the intention is to separate the political and the independent aspects of the deliberations, some people might be concerned if MSPs and Members of Parliament could sit on the tribunal.
Thirdly, will there be changes to the procedure for removing sheriffs and sheriffs principal, who will also be involved in devolution issues?

Mr. Wallace: I welcome the Government's stance following Lord McCluskey's amendments in another place. I share the Secretary of State's view that Lord McCluskey couched his arguments in pretty apocalyptic terms, but by over-egging the pudding, he at least got some pudding—bread and butter pudding.
We debated these matters when the Bill was previously before the House. My recollection is that the purpose of the provisions was to give some structure to the ways in


which judges could be dismissed. I understand—no doubt I will be corrected if I am wrong-that, until that point, it was unclear how Court of Session judges or the chairman of the Scott—sh Land Court could be dismissed. The intention was to put a procedure in place. The two-thirds majority was meant to give security to the judiciary. Motives that never existed were attributed to the Government for that, but the opposite was the case.
We now have a better procedure. It is interesting that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, shied away from the question whether the provisions for England were satisfactory. I suspect that they do not meet his international test of the convention on human rights or the Harare principles. The Government may have to revisit the matter to rectify the position in England.
The amended Bill will provide suitable machinery if the issue ever arises. I assume from what has been said that the tribunal could include lay people. That is welcome. The House will recall that, during the passage of the Bill, we proposed the inclusion of lay people in the appointment of judges. It might be appropriate if lay people, as well as senior members of the judiciary, were involved in a tribunal to assess their unfitness.

Mr. Oliver Heald: The hon. and learned Gentleman will recall that one of the points that Lord McCluskey made in another place is that, in order to judge those issues, it is important to know how the judiciary operates. He proposed in an amendment that the tribunal should consist of past or present members of the judiciary, who have such knowledge. Surely it would be wrong for those decisions to be made by lay people, who may not understand why a judge made a particular decision in a particular case.

Mr. Wallace: Under the amendment, the chairman of the tribunal would have to be a person who had held high judicial office, so a crucial position in the tribunal will undoubtedly be filled by someone equipped with judicial knowledge and the judicial approach. It is almost inevitable that other members of the tribunal would be members of the judiciary.
However, it is not unreasonable that there should be the possibility of a lay person being appointed. If, for example, the question at issue was the psychiatric condition of the judge concerned, it might well be thought that a leading psychiatric doctor—a person with the appropriate medical expertise—could make a valuable contribution to the tribunal. That is speculation, but I welcome the possibility that the tribunal could include a lay person.

Mr. Heald: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for letting me come back into the debate—that is generous of him. Suppose the issue that was causing concern about a judge was that he had made a decision about the vires of an Act of the Scottish Parliament, and suppose that was a highly controversial matter in Scotland. The chairman of the tribunal might take the view that the judge had made a perfectly sensible decision on the law, but the two lay people on the tribunal might be incensed by the issue, and might argue that, although

the decision was acceptable legally, they did not agree with it. That occasionally happens in an industrial tribunal, albeit on a slightly different issue.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please be brief?

Mr. Heald: I will be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) comment on whether the provision may lead to dangers?

Mr. Wallace: The tribunal will be constituted only at the request of the Lord President; so there is a judicial trigger. The circumstances in which a decision is made—

Mr. Evans: rose—

Mr. Wallace: I must answer the question raised by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald). If the trigger for constituting the tribunal is unhappiness about a judicial decision, that does not pass any test of inability, neglect of duty or misbehaviour; therefore, the question simply will not arise.

Mr. Grieve: I believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman is mistaken. He said that the Lord President would be the trigger, but, in fact, the tribunal may be constituted in such circumstances as the First Minister thinks fit. There is provision for the Lord President not to be involved in that decision.

Mr. Wallace: I was about to turn to that issue as I assumed that, in such a situation, we might call the ability of the Lord President into question. Will the Secretary of State confirm that that is what he had in mind? That is a hypothetical question, and I make no reference whatsoever to the incumbent, who is fit in many respects to hold that high office.
I agree also with the removal of the two thirds majority. The provision was proposed as a safeguard and, with the creation of the tribunal, it is no longer necessary. I agree with the hon. Member for Ribble Valley, who said that it would be intolerable if the tribunal recommended that a judge was unfit to hold office and that decision was subsequently overturned by Parliament. I think that we have struck a good balance. I sincerely hope that the mechanism will never need to be activated but, if it does, I think that we have struck the proper balance between protecting the judiciary and upholding its integrity.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: I join the Secretary of State in hoping that these cases will remain entirely hypothetical and that the measures will never have to be implemented in practice. I hope also that it will never be necessary—in the words of the Secretary of State—to "knock down judges like ninepins". However, the Bill must provide for even the most unusual circumstances. Therefore, we must ask how best to do that in the interests of justice and democracy, while allowing the new Parliament to take its own decisions in its own way.
There is widespread agreement that some form of independent tribunal is necessary to investigate the behaviour of any senior judge who faces the threat of dismissal. My party believes that neither of the two


alternatives before us this evening fully fits the bill. The amendments introduced in the other place by the noble Lord McCluskey would create a tribunal of the great and the good, which could be accused of involving an old boys' network of peers, judges and Privy Councillors in the decision making. However, I think that the Government's amendments are equally at fault in ensuring a central role for a judicial member of the Privy Council as the tribunal chairperson.
The Government have clearly sought to compromise with their amendment but, as with most off-stage deals, the result fails somewhat to make the grade. Why cannot the details of the proposed tribunal be left to the Scottish Parliament? Why must those restrictive provisions appear in the Bill? My party favours opening up the procedure for appointing judges through a judicial appointments commission. That would bring the fresh air of democratic scrutiny to the procedure. Such a body could also play a role in the investigation of misbehaviour or incompetence that is required before the removal of any senior judge.
In contrast, the new Scottish Parliament will have its hands tied by both sets of amendments. It will be unable to create a tribunal that it believes will be the most effective and suitable body. We must instead have a body conjured up by the Government in the short time since their defeat in the House of Lords. The Secretary of State may like to detail his discussions and consultations with the legal profession on his proposal in order to allow the House to judge whether the tribunal is born out of hasty compromise or genuine consideration. With whom has the Secretary of State spoken and whom has he consulted in the short time that has elapsed?
The Scottish National party certainly oppose the Lords amendments, but we remain to be convinced by the Government's alternative proposal before us tonight.

Mrs. Fyfe: Listening to the debate, it occurs to me that the grounds for considering a person to be unfit for office certainly include inability, neglect of duty and misbehaviour. However, when a judge is occasionally criticised in the media, that usually has more to do with the social attitudes that he has adopted in conducting a case or deciding a sentence. "Inability" may be narrowly defined in the Bill or it may cover a wide area. If it simply means incompetence, that would not apply in the situation that I envisage.
I am concerned that judges are often criticised very strongly—and sometimes correctly—because of the social attitudes that they display in their handling of court work, which places them in the last, rather than in this, century. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State offer his thoughts on that point?

Mr. Grieve: I am most grateful to the Secretary of State for explaining the way in which he has approached the amendments. The amendment before us has great merit. However, two aspects cause me slight concern. In this place, we tend to knock politicians excessively on their ability to be objective. Nevertheless, it seems to be undesirable that a member of the initial tribunal may also vote subsequently to ratify that tribunal's recommendation. To that extent, it seems inappropriate for a member of the tribunal also to be a Member of the Scottish Parliament that subsequently carries out the ratification process—not because such a person is a

parliamentarian, but because an independent tribunal that is acting as a gatekeeper should be seen to be composed of different people from those who subsequently vote to ratify its decision.
That is the only extent to which I disagree with the way in which the Secretary of State has approached this matter. I am certainly reassured by the fact that, broadly speaking, he has suggested that the members of the judiciary north of the border are happy with the proposed arrangements. I do not wish to digress too much, but I believe that the Secretary of State makes a perfectly valid point when he says that the arrangements south of the border may have to be reviewed.
I had always understood—although I stand to be corrected—that no mechanism exists for removing the judiciary north of the border before this legislation, because of an indirect consequence of the Act of Union 1707. Protecting the Scottish independent judicial system meant that the United Kingdom Parliament never saw fit to interfere with the process for fear it would be suggested that it was interfering with the wording of the Act of Union.
It may be an interesting by-product—I pay tribute to the Secretary of State, who made some kind remarks about me earlier—of this constitutional development that certain logjams in the way in which Scotland has been governed by virtue of the ring-fencing in the Act of Union will henceforth be more open to scrutiny. That is one matter where the Secretary of State may claim some credit.
I should be grateful if the Secretary of State would consider my points about the undesirability of the person who serves on the tribunal also subsequently ratifying its recommendations. Save for that, the Secretary of State has satisfied me on the Government's approach.

Mr. Syms: I feel somewhat more reassured than when I sat down earlier this evening. I agree with the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). One of my main concerns is that the tribunal could include a Member of the Scottish Parliament who, at a later stage, could have a second bite of the cherry by influencing his or her colleagues to vote to remove a judge. Lord Mackay of Drumadoon asked whether we ought to preclude the appointments of MSPs or Members of Parliament whose motives might be called into question—even if we are all honourable Members. It is sometimes better to be seen explicitly not to be involved in such issues.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) made the important point that, sometimes, the problem is caused by the attitudes of judges, rather than their conduct. I think that that is partly why the issue has become so explosive, not only in the other place but during this debate. It is important to get the issue absolutely right.
8.30 pm
One or two other points were raised by Lord Mackay. The First Minister should be under an obligation to lay the report of a tribunal before the Scottish Parliament but only if he intends to proceed with the necessary motion to remove the judge. It would be preferable for the tribunal to be set up by an Act of the Scottish Parliament rather than by subordinate legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) mentioned that.


Another issue raised has been partly answered by the interventions of my hon. Friends earlier. It is said that the Government will not accept the proposed changes because they wish the Scottish Parliament to lay down the procedure for the tribunal so that they can refine it in the near future. I think that we had an answer, and the answer is probably yes.
It has been said that it is unfortunate that the provisions do not apply to sheriffs and sheriffs principal because they, as well as judges, will be involved with devolution issues. However, I feel somewhat reassured by the debate and by the assurances given by the Secretary of State. The Lords, as always, have done us a favour by bringing these matters to our attention and enabling us to consider them again and perhaps come up with the right conclusions.

Mr. Dewar: I have listened with interest to what has been said. This is one of those happy occasions when there are few discordant notes, although the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh) has done his best. I think that he has been reading the somewhat remarkable press release issued today by one of his colleagues under the rather intriguing headline
Roseanna calls on Commons to reject McCluskey amendments".
I presume that we shall be expecting a vote in only a few minutes. Those who are not aware of who "Roseanna" is will think that we are in the business, perhaps, of glasses, globes and tents and foreseeing the future. In fact, "Roseanna" turns out merely to be a Scottish National party member, the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham), which is much less romantic.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Angus. As always, he could not quite rise to the flood of excitable invective which he promises when he rises in his place. I shall put that right by quoting one passage from the "Roseanna" press release. It reads:
The amendments put forward by Lord McCluskey would plunge us into the unsustainable and anti-democratic position of allowing the old boys' network an effective veto on attempts to dismiss senior judges.
I pay tribute to the nationalists, who are clearly prepared to go out on a limb on this matter. It is nice to know that the rhetoric of "unsustainable and anti-democratic" and so on is a banner still being carried bravely even in the fag end of the debate.
I say to the hon. Member for Angus—perhaps I should take his point a little seriously—that there is a case for a judicial commission that is broad based in terms of the appointment of judges. It is not necessarily one that the House would want to support, but it is one for which there is a strong argument. However, that is rather a different matter and different remit from a body that is being asked to look into the particular circumstances that might lead to the dismissal of a judge. The two matters are not necessarily linked and I think that it would be unwise to link them. I hope that, on mature reflection, particularly as the hon. Gentleman appears to be the only nationalist in the Chamber, he will decide not to divide the House, otherwise he might find some difficulty in running between the Lobbies and his arithmetic might not quite stand the strain.
I shall deal with one or two other points comparatively briefly. Self-evidently, we are trying, with the support of almost all the House, to put in place machinery that allows

proper discretion to rest with the Scottish Parliament in due course but provides for the essential safeguards that were felt necessary in another place, which I think enjoy a broad element of agreement.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) raised one or two specific points and some were picked up by his colleagues. I think that they felt that they had to do their duty. It is the oldest game and I played it for 20 years. One drops in on the debate, listens to what is said from one's Front Bench and then repeats it. It is a perfectly fair way of proceeding, particularly if someone is looking for a career.

Mr. Wallace: It clearly worked.

Mr. Dewar: It works.
We were asked whether we need to adapt the current machinery for sheriffs. The answer is quite clearly not. The sheriff procedure is being imported into the procedure to deal with the dismissal of judges. As I said earlier, their position is rather different from that of judges. Unfortunately there have been cases where sheriffs have had to be removed. In at least one case, a great deal of litigation has surrounded the proceedings. A panel has to sit to examine the matter and be satisfied. The matter is then brought to the House, where a majority is required. Those are robust and in-place proceedings and we certainly would not see any need to abandon them, particularly as we are, in effect, almost extending them.

Mr. Evans: I understand that there is precedent for the removal of a sheriff. I am aware of the time that it sometimes takes to do it. I think that, in one instance, it took a year. Can we be assured that, in the removal of judges, with the procedure that will be set in train, there will be a given time by which the exercise will be completed?

Mr. Dewar: We cannot give that assurance. That is not in the Bill. I suppose that the Scottish Parliament might decide to put in some sort of time limit but I think that that would be unwise. At what point should a time limit start running? It could be a matter for perhaps endless debate. I think that it is the spirit of the House that, if those unfortunate circumstances arose, proper and careful inquiries should be made. Presumably, it would be agreed that they would not be hurried. If anyone were involved, including obviously and inevitably as chairman a senior judge, he or she would have in mind at once the need to make thorough and proper inquiry, and also the need to remove the shadow over the colleague who in practice would probably be suspended. In a sense, he would not be actively engaged in work as a judge. He would obviously be entitled to get a decision which clarified his position one way or the other. That is a matter for proper and careful process and not for arbitrary time limits.
The matter was raised of the people who would serve upon the committee. I have made the point that I think that it is a matter for decision by the Scottish Parliament. We would certainly not want to rule out fairly broad representation if suitable people of standing and integrity had particular skills to offer in particular circumstances. I think that that is the sensible way in which to proceed. Obviously, the person who will chair must be eligible to be a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy


Council, and to take part in the proceedings over any question of vires. That means that they are not going to be over 75, which seems a good rule on the whole. As I approach 75, I might take a different view, but, at the moment, I think that that is sound.
The point was made, and I understand it, about whether we should be prohibiting Members of the Scottish Parliament from serving on the committee. The way that the question was actually put, I think, was whether parliamentarians could serve, or Members of Parliament. Self-evidently, Members of the United Kingdom Parliament could serve. Many of the people who are qualified to be chairman are likely to be life peers, or to have a seat in the House of Lords, and therefore be members of Parliament at UK level.
The question arises whether we should specifically prohibit Members of the Scottish Parliament. I do not think that that is necessary. I cannot envisage circumstances in which someone who will vote in the final decisions would be likely to be chosen or put on such a tribunal, as that would be, or could be, open to criticism. That is very unlikely to happen, but we should not start to rule out unsuitables, because we would never end. Should we specifically rule out anyone who, for example, at any time had served in the same chambers as, had a business relationship with, or was related to, the person in question? Common sense rules those people out. The same matter would self-evidently apply in this case.
The sort of people who will chair the tribunal will obviously be people of great weight. To quote a few of the likely candidates—if per chance this were brought into effect in the foreseeable future—Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry and Lord Hope of Craighead are likely to look a little askance if, having been appointed chairman, they found someone manifestly unsuitable or open to criticism among the membership of their panel. There are plenty of ways in which that situation can be avoided.
On the point that was raised in an intervention on the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) regarding the First Minister, whatever the trigger mechanism may or may not be, the important fact is that the First Minister may make a motion under clause 89(7)—that is, he may lay before Parliament a motion to remove a judge—only if he has received from a tribunal, constituted in pursuance of subsection 7(a), a written report concluding that the person in question
is unfit for office by reason of inability, neglect of duty or misbehaviour
and giving reasons for that conclusion. Therefore, unless that report is available, unless it can be laid before Parliament, the whole procedure would come to a halt. That is a reasonable situation in which to leave the matter.
I am satisfied that there is a proper balance here between protection for the judiciary—protection against errant politicking in an area where politicking is inappropriate—and, at the same time, a proper range of discretion to allow the Scottish Parliament to develop what seems to it to be the right machinery, working within the framework that has been laid down in law.
I appreciated the point that was made by the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland. He is, of course, absolutely right. Whatever the false start may have

been, whatever the way in which the argument snaked and was manipulated by hon. Members on both sides of the House, as it appeared in Committee, on Report in another place and so on, the whole foundation of this process was a recognition that there was a gap in the law of Scotland, and a wish to fill that gap properly and to remove some form of indecision.

Mrs. Fyfe: We have been hearing at some length tonight about the protection of judges, but I should be grateful if, before my right hon. Friend sat down, he would answer my point about protecting the public from judges who are out of touch with the society that they serve.

Mr. Dewar: That is a helpful question, in that it raises an important point. Obviously, judges have to use their discretion in a way that is responsible and befitting their office, but it would be wrong to get into the situation where, because one disagreed with an individual judgment or some statement from the bench that one felt was objectionable or did not properly recognise the social realities of a situation, we should consider using the processes in these clauses.
If there were a feeling that a wrong approach had been taken, some guidance might be appropriate from the Lord President, for example. I am not privy to what happens among the senators of the college of justice, but, presumably, they do on occasions consult. However, it is important that we do not make the mistake of thinking that, because there has been a disagreement with one particular judgment, that necessarily gives grounds for wanting to remove a judge.

Mrs. Fyfe: I am sorry to pursue the point again. I do not think that anyone—certainly not me—is suggesting that a judge should be sacked because of one judgment with which people disagree, but, if there were a consistent pattern of reactionary social attitudes, I would certainly argue that that was a case for sacking the judge.

Dr. Fox: There—we get it right at the end.

Mr. Dewar: I do not get it. I can think of some very interesting social arguments where my hon. Friend and I might approach a problem from a slightly different angle; that is conceivable. Indeed, I have known it to happen. I do not think that that necessarily brings it into the ambit of what would trigger the use of this particular machinery. Of course, I accept that my hon. Friend is right.
If a judge, over a lengthy period, is so awry in his judicial attitudes as to become a threat to public confidence and justice, that might well be something that a panel would want to consider. However, it would want to approach it with a great deal of caution. There may be other ways to deal with the problem. It is a matter of balance, reason and a sense of responsibility. The machinery that we have put in place is likely to achieve that balance and restore public confidence, without in any way threatening the integrity and independence of the judiciary.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 126 and 127 agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 128 and 129 disagreed to.

Government amendments (a), (b) and (c) in lieu of Lords amendments Nos. 128 and 129 agreed to.

Schedule 5

RESERVED MATTERS

Lords amendment: No. 237, in page 64, line 16, at end insert

(", or

(c) any office in the Scottish Administration.")

Mr. McLeish: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 238 to 278 and 296.

Mr. McLeish: As the House is aware, schedule 5 lists the matters that are reserved to the Westminster Parliament. Those are the matters which the Government believe should be dealt with on a Great Britain or United Kingdom basis in order to preserve the integrity of the UK and to maintain a level playing field for business, workers and consumers.
Any matter that is not listed in schedule 5 is not reserved, thus giving the Scottish Parliament legislative competence for those matters that can best be dealt with by it: health, education, local government, housing, law and the criminal justice system, the environment and agriculture, and forestry and fisheries. In practical terms, the Parliament will have very wide-ranging powers to make primary legislation in key areas which affect the lives of everyone in Scotland.
During proceedings in another place, we took the opportunity to make a number of primarily technical and drafting changes to the schedule to clarify the competence of the Parliament. The amendments—which are all firmly in line with the overall approach spelt out in the White Paper in July 1997, concerning the following sections of schedule 5—fall into this category: No. 237 on the Crown; Nos. 248 and 249 on elections; No. 250 on cinema safety; Nos. 255, 257 and part of 275 on financial assistance to industry; No. 256 on oil and gas; Nos. 260 and 262 to 267 on social security and pensions; Nos. 261 and 268 on training and job search and support; and Nos. 269 to 272 on equal opportunities.
We also promoted amendments Nos. 240 to 244 and 276 to 278 to improve the layout of the schedule and its interpretation provisions. In a number of cases, we have made adjustments to the boundary between reserved and devolved matters. Further reflection revealed practical problems with the existing approach, so amendments Nos. 238, 251, 253 and 254 reserved the interception of communications in relation to the prevention and detection of serious crime, although ministerial functions will be executively devolved.
Amendments Nos. 246 and 247 update the reference to the Data Protection Act 1984 to the 1998 Act, which has the effect of slightly widening the scope of the data protection reservation. Amendment No. 258 devolves bus fuel duty rebate in line with the devolution of general bus policy.
Lords amendment No. 296 transfers minor devolved functions from the registrar of companies in Scotland and the assistant registrar of friendly societies for Scotland to the Accountant in Bankruptcy.
It is a significant list of amendments, and I shall be happy to provide further details. I commend all the amendments to House and ask the House to accept them.

Dr. Fox: I should like to ask the Minister for clarification of two very short points, the first of which is on Lords amendment No. 255. What will be the exact practical effect of passing Lords amendment No. 255? Secondly, on amendment No. 258, will he explain why—as the Government had reserved grants to operators of bus services to defray duty charged on fuel—the position has suddenly changed? What implications might that have for bus companies operating close to or across the border? I ask for clarification simply to deal with any anxiety felt by, or representations from, those groups because of the amendment.

Mr. McLeish: On the first point, financial assistance to industry, Lords amendments Nos. 255 and 257 provide clarification of the extent to which certain ministerial powers relating to the giving of financial assistance to industry will transfer to Scottish Ministers.
Lords amendment No. 255 provides that giving financial assistance under section 1 of the Mineral Exploration and Investment Grants Act 1972—so far as it relates to exploration for oil and gas— is a reserved matter; whereas Lords amendment No. 257 provides that credits and grants under sections 10 to 12 of the Industry Act 1972 are not a reserved matter. However, by virtue of clause 52, the powers under the Industry Act will be shared powers, and the UK Minister as well as Scottish Ministers will be able to exercise those powers in or as regards Scotland.
Part of Lords amendment No. 275 clarifies that the Scottish Parliament can legislate on giving financial assistance to commercial activities for the purpose of promoting or sustaining economic development or employment. That will, among other things, enable the Parliament to make general provision that permits such assistance to industries, including those operating in reserved areas. However, the Parliament will not have competence to legislate for such assistance specifically in relation to a reserved commercial activity.
On the hon. Gentleman's second point, bus fuel duty, Lords amendment No. 258 removes the reservation of bus fuel duty rebate, thus making it a devolved matter in line with other aspects of bus policy. The matter was originally reserved because it was viewed as a tax matter, but it has recently been reclassified as a matter of public expenditure with responsibility for it transferred to the Scottish Office. In those circumstances, we felt that it was appropriate to remove it from the list of reserved matters.

I hope that that is an adequate explanation of the issues.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 238 to 278 agreed to.

Further consideration of Lords amendments adjourned.—[Mr. Hill.]

To be further considered tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With permission, 1 shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

NORTHERN IRELAND

That the draft Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 19th October, he approved.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE

That the draft Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 1998, which were laid before this House on 19th October, be approved.—[Mr. Hill.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT

Resolved,
That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hill.]

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Nine o'clock.